Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #661
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 661

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:42:48 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Reconsideration

>You are lying.  It is unbelievable that you are blatantly
>lying like this on this list.

>......

>
>Again, you are a blatant liar as well as a fraud.  Let me know when you are
>in Washington, DC so you can apologize to me in person.

I am just curious: what practical goal is achieved by using this tone and/or 
these words? Are they supposed to add something to the reasonment, to give 
it more strength?
The message that they convey to me is telling more something about the 
sender than the receiver, as I find unfortunate that some people are unable 
to conduct business otherwise.

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, 10 Aug 2001 13:47:45 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Reconsideration

About as much practical goal that is achieved by this list or participating
in the ICANN process.  Understand now?

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 1:43 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Reconsideration

>You are lying.  It is unbelievable that you are blatantly
>lying like this on this list.

>......

>
>Again, you are a blatant liar as well as a fraud.  Let me know when you are
>in Washington, DC so you can apologize to me in person.

I am just curious: what practical goal is achieved by using this
tone and/or
these words? Are they supposed to add something to the reasonment, to give
it more strength?
The message that they convey to me is telling more something about the
sender than the receiver, as I find unfortunate that some people are unable
to conduct business otherwise.

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, 10 Aug 2001 17:59:30 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "to represent the unrepresented"

Joanna Lane wrote:

>on 8/8/01 3:42 PM, DPF at [email-masked] wrote:
> > IMO there must be two
> > stages to the process.  The first is that either the NC or the Board
> > should give approval in principle that there should be a Registrant's
> > Constituency in the DNSO.  This is not a complex matter and to date
> > no-one has managed to argue why individual registrants should not in
> > principle have the same rights as business registrants and
> > organisation registrants.
> >
> > *If* such approval in principle is given with perhaps a deadline for a
> > detailed proposal then a detailed proposal you shall have.  Myself and
> > many others will spend dozens of hours on coming up with a superb
> > proposal.  However what motivation is there to do so when previous
> > attempts have all ended in nought.
> >
> > DPF
> > --
> > [email-masked]
> > ICQ 29964527
>
>David,
>
>I believe there has been a shift in position over the past few months at 
>top
>level on issues including an Individual's consituency. That should be 
>enough
>motivation to prepare documentation and submit to Montevideo.

I think that it is essential that something innovative, and of weight, is 
prepared for Montevideo.
The idea of "Registrants" instead of "Individuals" may be the key to 
overcome some objections and to present a new view on the matter.
But the key is that the proposal should not be just a declaration of 
principle, but get into details like:
- - define the members (not completely obvious, IMHO)
- - establish the funding
- - address problems like multiple identities
- - avoid potential capture
- - allow participation other than from registrants from organizations
just to start a list of.

>
>In Stockholm, the Board acknowledged the motion presented by the GA for an
>Individuals Constituency, but requested further details be presented at
>Montevideo about what they were being asked to approve, which does not seem
>to me to be an unreasonable request. Following that, Karl Auerbach has
>prepared a Board resolution, which could be regarded as a further incentive
>to prepare some proper supporting documention. Now we have Peter De Blanc, 
>a
>member of the NC and declared supporter of an individual's constitunecy,
>pressing for supporting documents, again not an unreasonable request and an
>incentive to make a more formal submission through the GA at this time.
>
>If you are prepared to spend dozens of hours preparing a superb proposal,
>that is great news. Count me in. And if you want to use one of the idle
>sub-lists for the purpose, it is ready and waiting.

Or maybe use the main list, as I assume that the matter is of general 
interest.
It is the Chair's pick, I would say.

>
>Given the timeframe before Montevideo and the need to accomodate
>longstanding supporters of an individual's constituency in any formal
>proposal made, I would invite the IDNO to submit clean copies of all
>relevant documents to the GA list for further discussion and debate. Of
>course, more than one proposal may go forward, but ideally, we may reach
>consensus following Best Practice procedures of the GA, which are now at 
>our
>disposal.
>
>There really is no excuse for not producing this stuff IMO.
>

Agree.
For my part, I can keep the Review TF informed.

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, 10 Aug 2001 13:54:13 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

Eric,

A little harsh but I hear you. There is a teleconference between candidates
and the IPC next Thursday, which is a welcome opportunity to get to know
them better and visa versa. I believe other constituencies may do the same,
whereas the GA approach is to pose questions to the list, which certainly
merits attention. Danny's enthusiasm to press for answers is admirable, but
equally, the ability to listen is an important quality in a leader and
that's what I have been doing for the past few days.

BTW, if you were to let me have your answers to those questions, I would
know what you seek from your candidate.

Regards,
Joanna

on 8/10/01 6:09 AM, Eric Dierker at [email-masked] wrote:

> Jefsey,
> 
> You are right on this matter and your *election* through the GA should be a
> fact.
> 
> If the others do not campaign here they must be doing it elsewhere that is not
> open and transparent.  Perhaps the members of the Watchdog committee have
> their
> own candidate in mind?  I will remain open but only on the list, if response
> to
> this is not forthcoming by the other candidates then we cannot trust them.  I
> am
> very saddened by these nefarious actions.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Eric
> 
> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> 
>> Dear Danny,
>> your questions are most welcome. I happen to be the only one - unless I am
>> mistaken - to have responded you first shoot. This went so unnoticed that
>> you do not even mention it.
>> 
>> I would therefore suggest that - since you are very good at that - you
>> would keep a comparative table of all the received responses with links to
>> the sites of the candidates. We could repeat the link to that page in our
>> mails.
>> 
>> IMHO the election period is not only a time where you select one person,
>> but where you can find sparing partners to debate of common interest
>> subject. My personal aim - whatever the result of this selection - is that
>> several issues may progress, such as:
>> 
>> - Internet Users Constituency,
>> - Individual and Corporate Constituency
>> - DNS Futures Constituency
>> - analysis of the "me/we" model implications for ICANN and DNSO management
>> - a Community Management System specifications
>> - respect of the RFC 920 moTLD
>> 
>> This is why I lobby for the vote of the NC to be taken after Montevideo.
>> This way Montevideo will be an opportunity for the candidates not known by
>> NC Members (Joana, Eric and me) to meet them f2f in calm since the
>> endorsement period will be finished. This would also prevent divisions in
>> the DNSO representation over the decision when we need to be united, and
>> the same would avoid the all the possible embarrassments and loss of future
>> authority that a monkey Director would be exposed to in such a public
>> meeting.
>> 
>> I will address your today questions in another post.
>> Regards.
>> Jefsey
>> 
>> On 05:23 10/08/01, [email-masked] said:
>>> It's time that we started hearing from our Board candidates.   If they
>>> intend
>>> to represent the DNSO, they should, at the very least, be responsive to the
>>> GA.  We have already submitted four questions to our Board candidates; here
>>> are some more... let's hope we get a few more replies...
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
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, 10 Aug 2001 18:41:49 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

Joanna Lane wrote:

> > I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA 
>nominations,
> > 10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to the NC 
>rules
> > of procedure.
> > I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your view.
> > Deadline August 15. ACTION all.
>
>Roberto. A resounding No. First, point me to the rule that says GA
>nominations require 10 endorsements, thoe are NC procedures, not the GA's,
>and the fact that they are is a figment of Philip's imagination I'm afraid.
>Second, a Motion to change the Bylaws to allow the GA to elect its own 
>Chair
>was formally presented to both WG-Review and the GA under the Chairmanship
>of Greg Burton, which the NC supported by its own policies during the last
>Election. A formal motion was drafted (by me as it happens) seconded and
>voted on, receiving unanimous support from all GA members, with the 
>possible
>exception of yourself (if memory serves me correctly). With the greatest
>respect, you cannot now chose to go completely against valid consensus
>building procedures that were undertaken within only recently during the
>last few months simply because it is not the result you seek.
>
>It is this kind of games playing by the NC that is counterproductive and
>causes increased resentment within the GA. I regret this decision has
>already been made and by a far greater range and number of affected
>stakeholders than the NC can possibly muster in this very limited Task
>Force. I would remind you that under the rules of cricket, when an over is
>over, it is over and a losing player cannot ask for a rematch simply 
>because
>he is captain of the team.

I am not sure to understand what you are talking about.
I have stated officially my position on the election of the GA-Chair in 
Marina del Rey last year (see 
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400.html#issues)

If you believe I think now differently, please provide evidence.

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, 10 Aug 2001 18:47:46 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Posting limit for candidates

I would use my last post of the day to recommend the Chair to lift the 
posting limit for the candidates answering questions from the GA about their 
positions.
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, 10 Aug 2001 20:56:01 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS REJECT ICANN'S ONE ROOT 'POLICY' 

Dear unknown JINTLAW,
the word "alternate root" is quite confusing and the way you use it too, 
since your second paragraph uses the words in lieu of TLD. This remark is 
necessary since the "Indeed Confusing Position-3" is to fight non existing 
"alternate root" divagations by Kent Crispin.

What really exists is ruled by RFC 920. This RFC stipulates there are three 
different classes of TLD all of them being of identical essence.

- - The initial TLDs - which have been since extended by .org and .arpanet, 
and now by the colliding .biz, .info, the Anglo-Saxon .name and .pro.
- - The ccTLD named after the 2 letter ISO list.
- - The moTLD (multiorganization) when expected 500 organizations or more 
want to share their own TLD, through a consortium, an alliance, etc.. An 
example is given: ".csnet".

As per the RFC 920 I formed and incorporated the ".sys" consortium, 
documented the project on the ICANN site before Yokohama and contacted Mike 
Roberts, then President of the ICANN (the bylaws of the ICANN leading to 
think it could be the NIC described in the RFC 920).

The response from Mike Roberts shown the ICANN was not the NIC and created 
the current "open routes". He responded that "if I was prepared to enter 
the International TLD Business" I was to pay $50.000 to his lottery and be 
prepared to spend much more afterwards. This was quite new and not 
conforming to Jon Postel's RFC 920 - what shows the "permanent" ICP-3 
"current" position does not reflect any immemorial policy.

My intend was only for an expected group a more than 500 organizations to 
share a three letter string requesting less than 100 characters to be 
entered into an ASCII file. What our colleagues from .linux priced to $20 
($10 to open the envelope, $10 to enter the  data).

Root and TLD Best Practices used by our root projects are strictly in 
conformance with the RFC 1591, the RFC 920, the IANA practices and the 
ccTLD discussed BP. There are based upon the fact that the DNS is 
recursive: the SLD are chosen by the SLD Registrants, hence the TLD by the 
TLD Manager, and the roots by the Root Administrators (and the public).

The main effort by everyone concerned is to avoid the conflicts of TLD 
Managers over the same strings. The Root and TLD Best Practices provide 
criteria to that end and leave the problem resolution mostly to the TLD 
Managers themselves as per RFC 1591. Practical observation shows that the 
things are not black and white, but that common sense prevails (who would 
invest in a collider and use lawyers in a start-up, except ICANN?).

As soon as the ICANN fulfill its mission as far as moTLD are concerned the 
so called "alternative roots" will disappear.

But the target of the ICANN seems different.

1. they create a few powerful competitive allies : NSI, Register, 
NeuLevel... in organizing the scarcity of TLDs. (Would there be any rush on 
.info and .biz would there already be thousands of sex.tld?)

2. they want them - as "global" TLD - to develop all over the world, with 
local physical presence. Until then strangled ccTLD contracts with them - 
and maybe get their machines in the US soil as requested by some cyber-war 
specialists.

3. and try to "stabilize" the InterNet under an enhanced UDRP to better 
protect famous TMs.

A part from the anti-trust case it will lead to with the general delay for 
the network development it may represent, this businocractic policy is by 
itself is a major risk of the Internet blowing up.

The solution to this is to forget Joe Sims and let come back to Jon Postel. 
To help ccTLD federating and animating the local Internet communities and 
aggregating as the ICANN Members, unlocking the Internet and the root. Then 
to leave the market and the people living their life the way they want. 
Soon every Registrar will manage a few TLDs and continue selling SLD from 
others TLD - not as resellers but as partners suppressing many of the today 
problems - insuring both diversity, stability and competition.

ICANN is very much like someone wanting to control the worldwide TV system 
to make sure that no TM rights of a few large corporations is misused. Let 
be serious. Only Kent Krispin and Stuart Lynn think that State owned 
ad-free TV stations would endanger the stability of the TV technology ....

Jefsey

On 12:48 10/08/01, [email-masked] said:
>I don't interpret it that way at all.
>
>To me (and I stress this is a personal opinion) it means that those who 
>operate on the alternate root should not be prevented from applying to be 
>in the authoritative root.
>
>Put yet even another way, in the event that an alternate root would like 
>to become part of the authoritative root and live by all of the rules that 
>the authoritative root TLDs live by, it should not be prevented from doing 
>so (i.e., subject to consensus policies, SLAs, Sanctions, Escrow, 
>mandatory financial commitments, UDRP, etc.).
>
>It is NOT an endorsement by Congress of the alternate roots, nor is it any 
>enorsement that ICANN should avoid collisions and be constrained the 
>alternate roots that are already operated.
>
>Thus, it is my personal opinion that ICP-3 and the Congressional statement 
>do not contradict each other.
>--
>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, 10 Aug 2001 14:20:38 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting limit for candidates

At 06:47 PM 8/10/2001 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>I would use my last post of the day to recommend the Chair to lift the 
>posting limit for the candidates answering questions from the GA about 
>their positions.
>Regards
>Roberto
>

Danny,

I support this idea as well.

~k

- --
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, 10 Aug 2001 12:50:53 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting limit for candidates

- --------------6EB2050BF5FEBC0104954089
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Which I would also recommend.  For future purposes, I would also
advance adoption of  this practice for all elections as an ISSUE to be
discussed, carried through to a PROPOSAL and ultimately to a VOTE.

Bill Lovell

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> I would use my last post of the day to recommend the Chair to lift the
> posting limit for the candidates answering questions from the GA about their
> positions.
> 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

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --------------6EB2050BF5FEBC0104954089
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Which I would also recommend.&nbsp; For future purposes, I would also
<br>advance adoption of&nbsp; this practice for all elections as an <font size=-1>ISSUE
</font>to be
<br>discussed, carried through to a <font size=-1>PROPOSAL</font> and ultimately
to a <font size=-1>VOTE</font>.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I would use my last post of the day to recommend
the Chair to lift the
<br>posting limit for the candidates answering questions from the GA about
their
<br>positions.
<br>Regards
<br>Roberto
<p>_________________________________________________________________
<br>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp">http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp</a>
<p>--
<br>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<br>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<br>Archives at <a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
<br>possibly be explained at:
<br>"WHAT IS": <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/">http://whatis.techtarget.com/</A>
<br>GLOSSARY: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm</A>
<br>Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
<br>mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------6EB2050BF5FEBC0104954089--

- --
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, 10 Aug 2001 12:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: RFC 1591 

On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Root and TLD Best Practices used by our root projects are strictly in
> conformance with the RFC 1591, the RFC 920, the IANA practices and the
> ccTLD discussed BP. There are based upon the fact that the DNS is
> recursive: the SLD are chosen by the SLD Registrants, hence the TLD by the
> TLD Manager, and the roots by the Root Administrators (and the public).

Another relevant point related to this is that with all the noise
certain individuals within ICANN makes about adherence to RFCs is the fact
that in enacting sunrise provisions ICANN is in violation of RFC 1591.

Strangely, no one from the IAB or ICANN talks about this much. So it would
seem that it is ok to ICANN to adhere to certain standards and not others.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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, 10 Aug 2001 22:36:19 +0200
From: "Pascal Bernhard - cube" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting limit for candidates

I second that recommendation. 

Pascal Bernhard 

On 10 Aug 2001, at 18:47, Roberto Gaetano wrote: 

> I would use my last post of the day to recommend the Chair to lift the
> posting limit for the candidates answering questions from the GA about
> their positions. 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
> 
> 

================================
Pascal Bernhard
cube
Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
[email-masked]
http://www.cube.de
- --
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, 10 Aug 2001 16:40:50 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

Roberto,
A resounding apology. The first part of this message was intended for you
and the second part refers to our esteemed NC Chair. For some reason best
known to myself I completely ignored the grammatical convention to refer to
Philip in the third person and merged the two of you. I do fully appreciate
your position in support of the GA to hold its own election.
Regards,
Joanna 

on 8/10/01 2:41 PM, Roberto Gaetano at [email-masked] wrote:

> Joanna Lane wrote:
> 
>>> I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA
>> nominations,
>>> 10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to the NC
>> rules
>>> of procedure.
>>> I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your view.
>>> Deadline August 15. ACTION all.
>> 
>> Roberto. A resounding No. First, point me to the rule that says GA
>> nominations require 10 endorsements, thoe are NC procedures, not the GA's,
>> and the fact that they are is a figment of Philip's imagination I'm afraid.
>> Second, a Motion to change the Bylaws to allow the GA to elect its own
>> Chair
>> was formally presented to both WG-Review and the GA under the Chairmanship
>> of Greg Burton, which the NC supported by its own policies during the last
>> Election. A formal motion was drafted (by me as it happens) seconded and
>> voted on, receiving unanimous support from all GA members, with the
>> possible
>> exception of yourself (if memory serves me correctly). With the greatest
>> respect, you cannot now chose to go completely against valid consensus
>> building procedures that were undertaken within only recently during the
>> last few months simply because it is not the result you seek.
>> 
>> It is this kind of games playing by the NC that is counterproductive and
>> causes increased resentment within the GA. I regret this decision has
>> already been made and by a far greater range and number of affected
>> stakeholders than the NC can possibly muster in this very limited Task
>> Force. I would remind you that under the rules of cricket, when an over is
>> over, it is over and a losing player cannot ask for a rematch simply
>> because
>> he is captain of the team.
> 
> I am not sure to understand what you are talking about.
> I have stated officially my position on the election of the GA-Chair in
> Marina del Rey last year (see
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400.html#iss
> ues)
> 
> If you believe I think now differently, please provide evidence.
> 
> 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, 10 Aug 2001 14:50:22 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS REJECT ICANN'S ONE ROOT 'POLICY' 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 3:49 AM

> I don't interpret it that way at all.  
> 
> To me (and I stress this is a personal opinion) it means that 
> those who operate on the alternate root should not be 
> prevented from applying to be in the authoritative root.  
> 
> Put yet even another way, in the event that an alternate root 
> would like to become part of the authoritative root and live 
> by all of the rules that the authoritative root TLDs live by, 
> it should not be prevented from doing so (i.e., subject to 
> consensus policies, SLAs, Sanctions, Escrow, mandatory 
> financial commitments, UDRP, etc.).  
> 
> It is NOT an endorsement by Congress of the alternate roots, 
> nor is it any enorsement that ICANN should avoid collisions 
> and be constrained the alternate roots that are already operated.

I read this the same way. To put it bluntly, a war can ONLY end when both
sides allow quarter. To persue a conflict with unmitigated bloodlust is to
guarantee continuance of the conflict and even a continued excalation in
hostilities (look at the middle-east). The inclusive roots were not created
at whim. They were created after years of frustration with /NSF/IANA/NSI and
by folks that very much knew what they were doing. In fact, were it not for
the activities of the inclusive root folk, I would wager that we would not
have ANY new TLDs today. I firmly believe that to be a true statement.

I believe that Congress also had that in mind. It is a hint, from some very
astute and powerful people, that these polarized positions are too extreme.
The compromise is to let the inclusive TLDs apply to the ICANN, without
prejudice. Alternatively, if both sides aren't willing to compromise, then
the war will continue and can even escalate (how many more NewNets do you
want? I know of three others, in various funding stages, right now.). 

I know for fact that, with some understandable trepedation, that the various
inclusive root players are open to such discussion. I also know for fact
that there are some hard-line opponents of any such compromise. This is
maybe because they resented having to open the root up, to new TLDs, in the
first place and the activity of the inclusive root community forced them to
change? I know that I'm not the only one that reads it that way.

The way I see it, Congress called for an honorable compromise. Since the
sole stumbling block, to such a compromise, is the hard-line element within
ICANN, let's see if they're listening. Remember, DOC reports to Congress.

- --
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, 10 Aug 2001 19:11:24 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] A question regarding the NC Vote...

- --part1_f.1895056d.28a5c41c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Philip,

Allow me to raise a point of order...

The ccTLD Constituency has already formally voted to withdraw from the DNSO.  
They have also declared that "On that basis members will not contribute to 
expenses for DNSO activities after 30 June 2001."

This being the case, how can we allow Oscar Alejandro Robles Garay, Elisabeth 
Porteneuve and Peter de Blanc to participate in the vote to select the next 
Director to represent the DNSO?

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --part1_f.1895056d.28a5c41c_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Dear Philip,
<BR>
<BR>Allow me to raise a point of order...
<BR>
<BR>The ccTLD Constituency has already formally voted to withdraw from the DNSO. &nbsp;
<BR>They have also declared that "On that basis members will not contribute to 
<BR>expenses for DNSO activities after 30 June 2001."
<BR>
<BR>This being the case, how can we allow Oscar Alejandro Robles Garay, Elisabeth 
<BR>Porteneuve and Peter de Blanc to participate in the vote to select the next 
<BR>Director to represent the DNSO?
<BR>
<BR>Best regards,
<BR>Danny Younger
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_f.1895056d.28a5c41c_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: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:44:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Posting limits for Board candidates

- --part1_db.18af3b39.28a5cbe4_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear members,

Thank you for suggesting to remove the posting limits for our ICANN Board 
candidates.  

I concur; this is a reasonable action to take at this time.

Best wishes to all our candidates.  

- --part1_db.18af3b39.28a5cbe4_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Dear members,
<BR>
<BR>Thank you for suggesting to remove the posting limits for our ICANN Board 
<BR>candidates. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>I concur; this is a reasonable action to take at this time.
<BR>
<BR>Best wishes to all our candidates. &nbsp;
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_db.18af3b39.28a5cbe4_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: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:15:50 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

Jefsey:

GA members have the power to endorse or not endorse nominees.

This has an importance and very big. Why?  Because every member of the
GA have the power to endorse or not anyone or endorse everyone, or to
endorse only one (or the amount they want), etc, even if after Names
Council members votes in favor or not about certain candidates.   Any
amount of GA members even has the freedom to arrange amongst themselves
to who endorse, or not endorse.

Maybe the members of the GA doesn't have the last word, but it has a
power in this elections.

Best Regards
Vany

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>  On 18:01 10/08/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>
>> Jeffsey, the votes have not started during the endorsement period.
>> Endorsement is part of an opportunity to hear from the candidates,
>> and see who else supports them... in short, while we in the U.S.
>> might call a campaign period;  others might call it candidate
>> awareness or interactions...
>
>
> Under our own cultures when voters are given their ultimate
> possibility  to express their position, we use to call that a vote :-)
>
> I know that in the ICANN system GA Members ballots carry no weight ...
> but let permit the GA to believe a few weeks that it has some
> importance ...  :-)
>
> Jefsey
>
>

- --
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #661
************************