Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #662
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 11 2001          Volume 01 : Number 662

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

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 15:12:55 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Additional Questions for our Board Candidates

At 18:38 10/08/01 +0200, 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,

The way I see the endorsement round, is to give the NC members  who do not 
participate or read the GA postings, the opportunity to quickly scan the 
list of endorsements, so that they know who *not* to vote for, even as a 
second or third choice.

Isn't that right, Marilyn? :-)

- --Joop--
the Cyberspace Association.
(www.idno.org)
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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 02:42:52 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] A question regarding the NC Vote...

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_01C12249.FE47ADB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Please allow a related point. Since the GA is the amalgam of all
constituencies, constituency members can vote in the GA, if they are
registered as members. I don't see how we can exclude ayone from the GA. In
the GA, they are simply members and not ccTLD members. Is this not correct?

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 4:11 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] A question regarding the NC Vote...

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 

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C12249.FE47ADB0
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 5.50.4616.200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=173054009-11082001><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Please 
allow a related point. Since the GA is the amalgam of all constituencies, 
constituency members can vote in the GA, if they are registered as members. I 
don't see how we can exclude ayone from the GA. In the GA, they are simply 
members and not ccTLD members. Is this not correct?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> [email-masked] 
  [mailto:[email-masked]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, August 10, 2001 4:11 
  PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email-masked]<BR><B>Subject:</B> [ga] A question regarding the 
  NC Vote...<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><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></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C12249.FE47ADB0--
- --
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, 11 Aug 2001 10:53:46 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: GA Chair election mechanism - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List ...

Joanna,

>A resounding apology. The first part of this message was intended ...

No need to apologize - it was a misunderstanding.

If we are mostly in agreement, maybe it is time to define a common position 
that I can present to the Task Force.

The position shall include, IMHO:
- - the statement that the GA should elect its Chair;
- - provide the rationale for it (self-governance, for instance);
- - observe that the GA currently elects other officials (like representatives 
to Task Forces, for instance) without any intervention of the NC, and the 
whole thing works well;
- - provide evidence of the previous positions of the GA (and other bodies, 
like WGs).

Please be aware that the last point is less than trivial: as there may be no 
time to vote, I should provide evidence that I do have mandate from the GA 
to express this position. I would appreciate your contribution in providing 
urls for the WG consensus calls and other messages you may think are 
relevant (private mail are good enough if you don't want to "waste a post").

Best 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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 11:42:32 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Consensus - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

I concur with Bret's comment.
Is there any disagreement to posting this concern as the concern of the GA 
(which means that we keep the concept of consensus)?
It will also be nice if the GA could come to an agreement on a definition of 
consensus. If I remember correctly, the leading example we used in former 
discussions on the subject was the IETF consensus-building process.
Maybe Harald or Sandy can point to some RFCs that we can use to start with, 
as soon as they are back from London.
Incidentally, talking about Sandy, I like the "IETF Guidelines for Conduct" 
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-poisson-code-04.txt), and I 
would not mind using that draft as the basis for the GA's "code of conduct" 
(mutatis mutandis, obviously). But this we can discuss another time.

Thoughts?

Regards
Roberto

>From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived
>Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 23:15:56 -0700
>
>Thanks for posting this, Danny.
>
>A couple of comments on the agenda items 1 and 6...
>
>"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 1. Working groups. Lead: Philip.
> > - "To turn the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines".
> > I posted this to the virtual site early July and have had no comment 
>yet.
> > Please look at it and either tell me OK or suggest a change. I will 
>construe
> > silence as consent. Deadline 15 August. ACTION ALL PLEASE.
>
>Keep in mind that the guidelines proposed by WG-D are light and flexible 
>*by
>design.* We looked at alternatives, tried some more rigid guidelines in
>earlier drafts, and came to the conclusion that the rules ought to be
>flexible enough to account for a variety of issues and modes of working.
>Those who had participated in many IETF working groups felt particularly
>strong about the need to maintain lightweight and flexible rules of
>procedure.
>
> > 6. Consensus.  Lead Milton
> > Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes 
>of
> > NC consultation activities.
> > Milton had earlier thoughts on this suggesting that we should drop the 
>word
> > consensus and just suggest certain majority or super majority rules for 
>DNSO
> > groups. This seems like a good way forward. Milton - please advise 
>progress
> > or post to the virtual workroom. Deadline Aug 15.
>
>Dropping the word "consensus" would be a mistake for the simple reason that
>all of the contracts with registries and registrars bind those entities to
>ICANN "consensus policies." That term has a particular legal significance
>within ICANN. Since you can't rewrite those contracts, you'll want to draft
>you rules in account for them. You don't want to run the risk that the NC
>passes something but the affected parties aren't bound because what the NC
>did doesn't meet the definition in the contracts about what is a
>"consensus."
>
>      -- Bret
>
>--
>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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 11:59:46 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Constituency Formation & Individuals Constituency

Good morning, it's me again.

The current position in the Task Force is that general criteria for adding 
constituencies should be defined prior to creation of a single new 
constituency.
While I understand the concern of NC about establishing a dangerous 
precedent with Individuals/Registrants if the procedures are not laid out 
correctly to take into account the general case, I would note that the issue 
of individuals has been floating around since day 1 of the DNSO. It would be 
rather odd if the Board would create a new Supporting Organization for 
ccTLDs while the DNSO/NC will remain at the drawing board, stuck with 
procedural issues.
So, what I would propose is "yes" to the definition of general rules with 
tight deadlines, but also a statement of principle by NC declaring the 
availability to evaluate in the shortest delays a proposal for 
Individuals/Registrants.
Our target should be to work on such proposal while the requirements are 
being shaped up, in order to have a sound document for MdR-2001.

Thoughts?

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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 09:01:51 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly  archived

I also agree with Bret's comment as well as with Roberto's suggestion that
it would be nice to come to agreement on a definition of consensus.  In my
opinion, David Johnson has had some of the best thoughts with regard to
consensus so I would recommend using his work as a starting point (e.g.,
David's speech in Stockholm).

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 7:43 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Consensus - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly
archived

I concur with Bret's comment.
Is there any disagreement to posting this concern as the concern of the GA 
(which means that we keep the concept of consensus)?
It will also be nice if the GA could come to an agreement on a definition of

consensus. If I remember correctly, the leading example we used in former 
discussions on the subject was the IETF consensus-building process.
Maybe Harald or Sandy can point to some RFCs that we can use to start with, 
as soon as they are back from London.
Incidentally, talking about Sandy, I like the "IETF Guidelines for Conduct" 
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-poisson-code-04.txt), and I 
would not mind using that draft as the basis for the GA's "code of conduct" 
(mutatis mutandis, obviously). But this we can discuss another time.

Thoughts?

Regards
Roberto

>From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived
>Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 23:15:56 -0700
>
>Thanks for posting this, Danny.
>
>A couple of comments on the agenda items 1 and 6...
>
>"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 1. Working groups. Lead: Philip.
> > - "To turn the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines".
> > I posted this to the virtual site early July and have had no comment 
>yet.
> > Please look at it and either tell me OK or suggest a change. I will 
>construe
> > silence as consent. Deadline 15 August. ACTION ALL PLEASE.
>
>Keep in mind that the guidelines proposed by WG-D are light and flexible 
>*by
>design.* We looked at alternatives, tried some more rigid guidelines in
>earlier drafts, and came to the conclusion that the rules ought to be
>flexible enough to account for a variety of issues and modes of working.
>Those who had participated in many IETF working groups felt particularly
>strong about the need to maintain lightweight and flexible rules of
>procedure.
>
> > 6. Consensus.  Lead Milton
> > Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes

>of
> > NC consultation activities.
> > Milton had earlier thoughts on this suggesting that we should drop the 
>word
> > consensus and just suggest certain majority or super majority rules for 
>DNSO
> > groups. This seems like a good way forward. Milton - please advise 
>progress
> > or post to the virtual workroom. Deadline Aug 15.
>
>Dropping the word "consensus" would be a mistake for the simple reason that
>all of the contracts with registries and registrars bind those entities to
>ICANN "consensus policies." That term has a particular legal significance
>within ICANN. Since you can't rewrite those contracts, you'll want to draft
>you rules in account for them. You don't want to run the risk that the NC
>passes something but the affected parties aren't bound because what the NC
>did doesn't meet the definition in the contracts about what is a
>"consensus."
>
>      -- Bret
>
>--
>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
- --
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, 11 Aug 2001 09:28:49 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Constituency Formation & Individuals Constituency 

- --part1_45.a8145b7.28a68d11_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good morning Roberto,

You have asked for thoughts, so these are my personal comments/questions...

1.  Will existing constituencies be held to the same criteria as any new 
constituency?

2.  You have spoken of "tight deadlines", but have also mentioned having a 
"sound document for MdR 2001".  As the Review Working Group was given only a 
3-week timeline to review the entirety of the DNSO, why does this Task Force 
require 3 months just to establish criteria?  Why can't you be finished by 
Montevideo?  Who is delaying your progress?

3.  Why does this Review Task Force continue to work in secret?  What 
happened to the concept of "open and transparent"?     It does not take over 
a month to evaluate a web-based forum.   If you are using the "virtual 
workroom" without difficulty, then open it up so that we may all take note of 
the conversations (which should be publicly archived).  

Perhaps you may recall this quote from Philip Sheppard:  "It is understood 
that the structure of
participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO working 
groups!"

We are stilling waiting for this full participation.   

When does this Task Force intend to be in compliance with the Bylaws?   Allow 
me to point out the relevant portion:  "The Corporation and its subordinate 
entities shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and 
transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness
."

Where is the "transparency" in a website that is not viewable by the public?

Please advise your fellow Task Force members that if this forum is not opened 
to public purview with all due speed, and that if action is not taken to 
allow for the full participation of the General Assembly, then a formal 
"reconsideration and review request" will be submitted to the Board.

The NC is in violation of the ByLaws and will be held accountable.

    

    

- --part1_45.a8145b7.28a68d11_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Good morning Roberto,
<BR>
<BR>You have asked for thoughts, so these are my personal comments/questions...
<BR>
<BR>1. &nbsp;Will existing constituencies be held to the same criteria as any new 
<BR>constituency?
<BR>
<BR>2. &nbsp;You have spoken of "tight deadlines", but have also mentioned having a 
<BR>"sound document for MdR 2001". &nbsp;As the Review Working Group was given only a 
<BR>3-week timeline to review the entirety of the DNSO, why does this Task Force 
<BR>require 3 months just to establish criteria? &nbsp;Why can't you be finished by 
<BR>Montevideo? &nbsp;Who is delaying your progress?
<BR>
<BR>3. &nbsp;Why does this Review Task Force continue to work in secret? &nbsp;What 
<BR>happened to the concept of "open and transparent"? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It does not take over 
<BR>a month to evaluate a web-based forum. &nbsp;&nbsp;If you are using the "virtual 
<BR>workroom" without difficulty, then open it up so that we may all take note of 
<BR>the conversations (which should be publicly archived). &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>Perhaps you may recall this quote from Philip Sheppard: &nbsp;"It is understood 
<BR>that the structure of
<BR>participation will be an improvement on the present structure of DNSO working 
<BR>groups!"
<BR>
<BR>We are stilling waiting for this full participation. &nbsp;&nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>When does this Task Force intend to be in compliance with the Bylaws? &nbsp;&nbsp;Allow 
<BR>me to point out the relevant portion: &nbsp;"The Corporation and its </FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><B>subordinate 
<BR>entities</FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B> shall operate to the <B>maximum extent feasible</B> in an <B>open and 
<BR>transparent manner</B> and consistent with <B>procedures designed to ensure fairness</B>
<BR>."
<BR>
<BR>Where is the "transparency" in a website that is not viewable by the public?
<BR>
<BR>Please advise your fellow Task Force members that if this forum is not opened 
<BR>to public purview with all due speed, and that if action is not taken to 
<BR>allow for the full participation of the General Assembly, then a formal 
<BR>"reconsideration and review request" will be submitted to the Board.
<BR>
<BR>The NC is in violation of the ByLaws and will be held accountable.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>    
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>    
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_45.a8145b7.28a68d11_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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 09:45:10 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Second Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources

- --part1_d4.a8214e5.28a690e6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear members,

Louis Touton has advised the Council of a new announcement (rather important):
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm

It would be nice if ICANN staff chose to include the GA on their mailing list 
as well... but I guess some things will never change.

- --part1_d4.a8214e5.28a690e6_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3>Dear members,
<BR>
<BR>Louis Touton has advised the Council of a new announcement (rather important):
<BR>http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm
<BR>
<BR>It would be nice if ICANN staff chose to include the GA on their mailing list 
<BR>as well... but I guess some things will never change.
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_d4.a8214e5.28a690e6_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: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 07:57:24 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A question regarding the NC Vote...

- --------------AAE8CF6DC7BEEBD75FF7BE70
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good point Danny raised, but I believe Roeland is correct.  I'm not
aware of being
a member of any "constituency," but yet I do belong to the GA.  And
while the ccTLD
may no longer be a part of the DNSO, and hence not a part of the GA,
that would not
preclude individual members of the ccTLD from continuing as active,
voting members
of the GA when wearing that hat.

Bill Lovell

Roeland Meyer wrote:

>  Please allow a related point. Since the GA is the amalgam of all
> constituencies, constituency members can vote in the GA, if they are
> registered as members. I don't see how we can exclude ayone from the
> GA. In the GA, they are simply members and not ccTLD members. Is this
> not correct?
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>      Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 4:11 PM
>      To: [email-masked]
>      Subject: [ga] A question regarding the NC Vote...
>
>      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
>
>
>
- --
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

- --------------AAE8CF6DC7BEEBD75FF7BE70
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<br>Good point Danny raised, but I believe Roeland is correct.&nbsp; I'm
not aware of being
<br>a member of any "constituency," but yet I do belong to the GA.&nbsp;
And while the ccTLD
<br>may no longer be a part of the DNSO, and hence not a part of the GA,
that would not
<br>preclude individual members of the ccTLD from continuing as active,
voting members
<br>of the GA when wearing that hat.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Roeland Meyer wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;<span class=173054009-11082001><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000FF"><font size=-1>Please
allow a related point. Since the GA is the amalgam of all constituencies,
constituency members can vote in the GA, if they are registered as members.
I don't see how we can exclude ayone from the GA. In the GA, they are simply
members and not ccTLD members. Is this not correct?</font></font></font></span>
<blockquote 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
<div class="OutlookMessageHeader" dir="ltr"><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1>-----Original
Message-----</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>From:</b> [email-masked]
[<A HREF="mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>]</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 10, 2001
4:11 PM</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>To:</b> [email-masked]</font></font>
<br><font face="Tahoma"><font size=-1><b>Subject:</b> [ga] A question regarding
the NC Vote...</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;</div>
<font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Dear Philip,</font></font>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Allow me to raise a point
of order...</font></font>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>The ccTLD Constituency has
already formally voted to withdraw from the DNSO.</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>They have also declared
that "On that basis members will not contribute to</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>expenses for DNSO activities
after 30 June 2001."</font></font>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>This being the case, how
can we allow Oscar Alejandro Robles Garay, Elisabeth</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Porteneuve and Peter de
Blanc to participate in the vote to select the next</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Director to represent the
DNSO?</font></font>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Best regards,</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Danny Younger</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</blockquote>
</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>

- --------------AAE8CF6DC7BEEBD75FF7BE70--

- --
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, 11 Aug 2001 10:59:29 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: Consensus - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

>It will also be nice if the GA could come to an agreement on a
>definition of
>consensus.

How can you ever a "consensus" in this process when only a miniscule
fraction of the affected parties have even the slightest idea of what is
going on?  Your extremely small circle of cronies who are making the
decisions are very, very far removed from the average domain/Internet user
so I don't see how the nonsense you are involved with here could ever be
considered a "consensus" except among these small circle of cronies.  What
makes matters worse is that ICANN claims a "consensus" when it is clear that
none exists.  The people you need to build a "consensus" don't even know
what "IETF" stands for (nor do they care) and you are certainly not going to
find anything from an RFC.

You people are really in a fantasy land.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 11 Aug 2001 08:07:37 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Second Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of SRS  Resources

- --------------FB519CE75462777C36F47039
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Upon a quick review of that announcement, my conclusion is that
the conduct described is indefensible.  Not all the "bad guys" reside
within Verizon and ICANN, if that description is accurate. What's
the saying about "getting your own house in order?" Since the
registrars have a constituency, perhaps an item for their agenda
might be the policing of that sort of thing, since such things do affect

registrants, "consumers" (a term that should never be applied in this
internet context), and individual domain name holders, i.e., GA
members.

Which is not to say that ICANN is clean.  Not including the GA
on its mailing list is equally indefensible.

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> Louis Touton has advised the Council of a new announcement (rather
> important):
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm
>
> It would be nice if ICANN staff chose to include the GA on their
> mailing list
> as well... but I guess some things will never change.
>

- --
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

- --------------FB519CE75462777C36F47039
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Upon a quick review of that announcement, my conclusion is that
<br>the conduct described is indefensible.&nbsp; Not all the "bad guys"
reside
<br>within Verizon and ICANN, if that description is accurate. What's
<br>the saying about "getting your own house in order?" Since the
<br>registrars have a constituency, perhaps an item for their agenda
<br>might be the policing of that sort of thing, since such things do affect
<br>registrants, "consumers" (a term that should never be applied in this
<br>internet context), and individual domain name holders, i.e., GA
<br>members.
<p>Which is not to say that ICANN is clean.&nbsp; Not including the GA
<br>on its mailing list is equally indefensible.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>[email-masked] wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Dear members,</font></font>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Louis Touton has advised
the Council of a new announcement (rather important):</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0><A HREF="http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm">http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm</A></font></font>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>It would be nice if ICANN
staff chose to include the GA on their mailing list</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>as well... but I guess some
things will never change.</font></font>
<br>&nbsp;</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>

- --------------FB519CE75462777C36F47039--

- --
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, 11 Aug 2001 11:14:55 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Second Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources

>Louis Touton has advised the Council of a new announcement (rather
important):
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm

This is a well-known problem that has been going on for years.  Here is
story from Feb 1999 where it was discussed by me
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-338892.html.  The problem had already
existsted for quite some back then.

The solution is rather straighforward.  You isolate the "grabbing" system
from the rest of registry system so normal business is not affected.  Then
you implement a landrush system similar to what is being used for some of
the new TLD's.  Of course it would have been much cheaper to implement this
at the start of the shared registry system.  To go back and try to fix it
now will be much more expensive.

Among most of the average domain buyers I believe a "consensus" existed
years ago that the system should be corrected.  However, the people at
Verisign are only concerned with the "consensus" of their shareholders.
Since there was no profit motive for doing this it never was done.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 11 Aug 2001 11:19:38 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Second Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of SRS Resources

here are some more references (these articles are the most accurate
description I have seen):

http://ecommercebase.com/article/352

http://ecommercebase.com/article.php?aid=394&pid=0

http://www.ecommercebase.com/article.php/447

Russ Smith

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 11:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Second Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of SRS
Resources

>Louis Touton has advised the Council of a new announcement (rather
important):
>http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm

This is a well-known problem that has been going on for years.
Here is story from Feb 1999 where it was discussed by me
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-338892.html.  The problem had
already existsted for quite some back then.

The solution is rather straighforward.  You isolate the "grabbing"
system from the rest of registry system so normal business is not
affected.  Then you implement a landrush system similar to what is
being used for some of the new TLD's.  Of course it would have been
much cheaper to implement this at the start of the shared registry
system.  To go back and try to fix it now will be much more expensive.

Among most of the average domain buyers I believe a "consensus"
existed years ago that the system should be corrected.  However,
the people at Verisign are only concerned with the "consensus" of
their shareholders.  Since there was no profit motive for doing
this it never was done.

Russ Smith

- --
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, 11 Aug 2001 09:19:16 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Second Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of SRS R esources

The political problems are both the [lack of] notification [to the GA] and
the business requirements of the SRS system. The result is a technical
problem that can be solved by proper distributed systems architecture.

This particular problem was forseeable over two years ago. NSI had lookup
melt-down problems, even then. The issues were exactly the same. At the
time, I indicated my lack of confidence in NSI's software development
capabilities.

Name registration lookups are probably the single most common transaction on
the SRS system. Not only is that fact intuitively obvious, but I'll bet no
small amount of change that statistics will bear me out. In other words ...
DUH!

Lois Touton is *way* out of place, blaming users for bad systems design. The
system should be scalable to the load requirements. Whatever those load
requirements may be or whatever they may become. A real good design allows
scaling by additional hardware.

There are only a small number of firms that are considered competent to
handle such design. As far as I know, neither ICANN nor NSI has ever
contacted any of them. BTW, Versign *isn't* one of them.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Information and Systems Archtect
Morgan Hill Software Company
t:01 925 373 3954
c:01 925 352 3615
f:01 925 373 9781 

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 6:45 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Second Advisory Concerning Equitable Allocation of SRS
Resources

Dear members, 

Louis Touton has advised the Council of a new announcement (rather
important): 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm 

It would be nice if ICANN staff chose to include the GA on their mailing
list 
as well... but I guess some things will never change. 
- --
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 #662
************************