Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #672
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 15 2001          Volume 01 : Number 672

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:09:58 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

interesting conclusion ..

one previous formal submission  ? one rejection ?  (roberto previously
outlined reason for rejection)

interesting play on words leah....... i guess the singular "one" could be
interpreted as "every" (but frankly..... it's  a bit of a stretch )

i am still waiting for concrete "proposals" and all i see here is on this
list   "unstructured discussion"

its too bad that all the energy that has been put into complaining hasn't
been applied  more constructively into preparation of a concrete proposal
for submission

ken stubbs

> Peter,
>
> Given a chance, there would be thousands of members.  However,
> since the BoD and NC have shot down every attempt at formation,
> people are now reluctant to do much until there is an indication
> that the Board will, in fact, approve one.

>
> On 14 Aug 2001, at 16:25, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > Milton,
> >
> > Regardless of your comments about number of ccTLD's participating,
> > that has little to do with what I said.
> >
> > When I said "100", I said persons or organizations signing off on a
> > document. Surely you have 100 persons to represent an IDNH
> > constituency. You should have thousands!
> >
> > Peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:00 AM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request
> >
> >
> >
> > "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are there more than 100 organizations actively represented in the
> > > ccTLD constituency?
> > >
> > > (We both know the answer is no - about 30
> > > actually participate).
> >
> > ==> You are icorrect Milton.
> >
> >     We had 95 ccTLD Registries contributing to ICANN (sending money,
> >               more than 1 million USD, all from foreign countries)
> >     We had 98 ccTLD Registries voting in our elections
> >     We had 70 ccTLD Registries physically represented at Geneva
> >     meeting
> >               last February
> >
> >     If you consider in domain names or in population of countries from
> >     which ccTLD Registries come, and which Local Internet Communities
> >     they represent sometimes, the active participation is
> >     approximately 99 percent.
> >
> >     Elisabeth Porteneuve
> >     ccTLD NC rep
> >
> > >
> > > >>> "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]> 08/13/01 07:12PM >>>
> > > If and when a set of documents to form the idho, or whatever it
> > > evolves to be called, with aa significant number of persons and
> > > organizations signing off on it (more than 100) I would endorse it
> > > for
> >
> > > presentation to the ICANN board.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:08:59 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

If every decision has to be a consensus decision, nothing will ever get
done.  Moreover, not all decisions are policy decisions.  Some decisions are
contractual, some are business decisions, some are legal, etc.

I certainly do not think that all ICANN and DNSO decisions made to date have
had the full consensus of the larger community, but there are several
reasons for this, a few of which I think are these:  in some cases the
demand for action did not allow adequate time for a rigorous consensus
development process; the DNSO had not yet developed and applied a consensus
development process that could be used effectively; the Names Council
sometimes acted like a representative body instead of a consensus management
body; etc.

You cannot force people to participate in the consensus development process,
but if reasonable efforts are made to encourage their participating, that
should be acceptable provided it is documented.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: technizmo [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 11:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Consensus of some small subset of the affected
> community should never be generalized to mean >
consensus of the larger community.  

OK.  Given this, does this make every decision yet
made by the ICANN and DNSO illegitimate?  Or has the
corporation been sufficiently represented by the
affected community of worldwide internet users and
providers.

> At a bare minimum there should be a 
> documented outreach to the broader community > and
documented results of that outreach.  If in 
> the end, the outreach efforts are deemed to be 
> reasonable and members of the broader 
> community are non-responsive, then it may be 
> acceptable to conclude that they are not
> interested and move forward with a consensus 
> based on those who are interested.

Outreach for additional DNSO GA membership should not
be undertaken for the sole purpose of legitimizing a
specific position on a specific issue.  Better to
perform outreach at all times, to educate non-members
as to the fact that they may have a stake in the
proceedings.  They can then make up their own minds
based on the discussion in this forum.  

Conversely, support for a specific position on a
specific issue should not be judged based on the
amount it is advertised, but rather (and more simply)
on the support it receives from participating members.

> It is not only possible but also reasonable that 
> on many issues it will not be possible to reach a >
community consensus.  That is perfectly okay.

Agreed.

> In those cases we should simply let market 
> forces work as freely as possible and allow 
> diversity so that consumers can choose what
> best meets their needs and interests.

Sounds good, but those market forces have permitted
absurdly large organizations to evolve, sufficiently
powerful enough to take advantage of and control the
ICANN and DNSO, creating barriers to entry for
anything resembling a "consumer" interest.  This is
evidenced in BoD representation, DNSO constituency
structure, and the auto-NACK debacle. 

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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, 15 Aug 2001 00:23:45 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

On 22:25 14/08/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>Milton,
>Regardless of your comments about number of ccTLD's participating, that
>has little to do with what I said.
>When I said "100", I said persons or organizations signing off on a
>document. Surely you have 100 persons to represent an IDNH constituency.
>You should have thousands!

Dear Peter,
the outreach effort to get one person is very costly to non profit benevolent
people. While it is not cost for you as a paid ccTLD. As you obviously are
willing to cooperate could we make a proposition to you?

When ccTLDs register a new DN they could inform the DN holder that
the ICANN is the organization supporting the Internet and that DN Holders
are going to be represented. It could then propose the new Registrant :

- - check a box if he wants to be informed - less tha 4 mails a year.
- - fill in an edit box about any suggestion he might have
- - check a box if he wants to participate into the IDNHC Mailing list

Where is the most appropriate place for a new DN holder to know
about all this than on your site.

Joop, is there anything in your plans which would prevent you to
give an IDNHC partner label to ccTLDs, Registries, Registrars and
Resellers. I would certainly put one with a link to an IDNH page/form.

Jefsey

- --
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:26:01 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

At 6:09 PM -0400 14/8/01, Ken Stubbs wrote:

>i am still waiting for concrete "proposals"

What is REALLY annoying(and saddening) about what has become of ICANN is
that pricks like you are now firmly in control.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:11:04 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

Ken Stubbs is looking for a "concrete proposal".

I would be willing to bet that if a concrete proposal was submitted to the 
Board today, the only response that we would receive would be:

"Whereas the ICANN Board is in receipt of a proposal regarding the 
establishment of a new DNSO constituency;
Whereas the Names Council has been notified that the ICANN Board expects to 
receive a bottom-up community-based consensus proposal regarding criteria 
governing the establishment of new constituencies;
Whereas the Board is not in receipt of such proposal from the Names Council;
It is hereby resolved that no action on this matter is to be taken at this 
time."  

Perhaps Ken can motivate his associates on the Council to finish drafting 
such criteria before Montevideo.  If they can commit to finishing this 
project by then (the Council Business Plan, after all, was drafted back in 
February), then I am sure that our motivated members can have a concrete 
proposal ready.

If we all cooperate we can get this job done.  Ken, are you willing to take 
the lead on this in the Council?  Can you settle the issue of "criteria", so 
that any concrete proposal may be examined in light of this "criteria"?   We 
are awaiting the efforts of the Council.  Can we count on your support to 
have the Council complete its work in a timely fashion?
- --
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:16:39 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

This is an interesting idea. You should present a paper to the ccTLD
constituency in Montevideo.

Of course, there would have to BE an IDNH constituency, a secretariat,
some one to deal with the mail requests, etc...

Peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 6:24 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

On 22:25 14/08/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>Milton,
>Regardless of your comments about number of ccTLD's participating, that

>has little to do with what I said. When I said "100", I said persons or

>organizations signing off on a document. Surely you have 100 persons to

>represent an IDNH constituency. You should have thousands!

Dear Peter,
the outreach effort to get one person is very costly to non profit
benevolent people. While it is not cost for you as a paid ccTLD. As you
obviously are willing to cooperate could we make a proposition to you?

When ccTLDs register a new DN they could inform the DN holder that the
ICANN is the organization supporting the Internet and that DN Holders
are going to be represented. It could then propose the new Registrant :

- - check a box if he wants to be informed - less tha 4 mails a year.
- - fill in an edit box about any suggestion he might have
- - check a box if he wants to participate into the IDNHC Mailing list

Where is the most appropriate place for a new DN holder to know about
all this than on your site.

Joop, is there anything in your plans which would prevent you to give an
IDNHC partner label to ccTLDs, Registries, Registrars and Resellers. I
would certainly put one with a link to an IDNH page/form.

Jefsey

- --
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:21:24 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Leah, and all

I am getting really tired of this rhetoric. Most board members and NC
members I know support the idea of IDNH constituency.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 4:45 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Peter, 

Given a chance, there would be thousands of members.  However, 
since the BoD and NC have shot down every attempt at formation, 
people are now reluctant to do much until there is an indication 
that the Board will, in fact, approve one.  There has been no such 
indication and the chicen and egg routine continues.

It appears rather obvious that it is a similar attitude as that 
regarding the at-large.  The BoD doesn't want that "for real" 
participation and has put as many stumbling blocks as possible in 
its way.  The IDNHC is even worse.  Even with self formation it has 
been shot down time after time.  The climate is one of 
discouragement.

IMO, the NC should fully endorse the formation of this constituency 
and then people would set out to self form again.

Leah

On 14 Aug 2001, at 16:25, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Milton,
> 
> Regardless of your comments about number of ccTLD's participating, 
> that has little to do with what I said.
> 
> When I said "100", I said persons or organizations signing off on a 
> document. Surely you have 100 persons to represent an IDNH 
> constituency. You should have thousands!
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:00 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request
> 
> 
> 
> "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > Are there more than 100 organizations actively represented in the 
> > ccTLD constituency?
> > 
> > (We both know the answer is no - about 30
> > actually participate).
> 
> ==> You are icorrect Milton.
> 
>     We had 95 ccTLD Registries contributing to ICANN (sending money,
>               more than 1 million USD, all from foreign countries)
>     We had 98 ccTLD Registries voting in our elections
>     We had 70 ccTLD Registries physically represented at Geneva
>     meeting
>               last February
> 
>     If you consider in domain names or in population of countries from
>     which ccTLD Registries come, and which Local Internet Communities
>     they represent sometimes, the active participation is
>     approximately 99 percent.
> 
>     Elisabeth Porteneuve
>     ccTLD NC rep
> 
> > 
> > >>> "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]> 08/13/01 07:12PM >>>
> > If and when a set of documents to form the idho, or whatever it 
> > evolves to be called, with aa significant number of persons and 
> > organizations signing off on it (more than 100) I would endorse it 
> > for
> 
> > presentation to the ICANN board.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail 
> > to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body 
> > of the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send 
> mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga-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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:52:39 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

>If every decision has to be a consensus decision, nothing will ever get
>done.

So ICANN should stop making false claims of a consensus and start being
truthful about how decisions are made ... but they won't do that.

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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:03:18 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Ken, 

I didn't see you participate in previous attempts. I wonder why?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 3:10 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request
|> 
|> 
|> interesting conclusion ..
|> 
|> one previous formal submission  ? one rejection ?  (roberto 
|> previously
|> outlined reason for rejection)
|> 
|> interesting play on words leah....... i guess the singular 
|> "one" could be
|> interpreted as "every" (but frankly..... it's  a bit of a stretch )
|> 
|> i am still waiting for concrete "proposals" and all i see 
|> here is on this
|> list   "unstructured discussion"
|> 
|> its too bad that all the energy that has been put into 
|> complaining hasn't
|> been applied  more constructively into preparation of a 
|> concrete proposal
|> for submission
|> 
|> ken stubbs
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> > Peter,
|> >
|> > Given a chance, there would be thousands of members.  However,
|> > since the BoD and NC have shot down every attempt at formation,
|> > people are now reluctant to do much until there is an indication
|> > that the Board will, in fact, approve one.
|> 
|> >
|> > On 14 Aug 2001, at 16:25, Peter de Blanc wrote:
|> >
|> > > Milton,
|> > >
|> > > Regardless of your comments about number of ccTLD's 
|> participating,
|> > > that has little to do with what I said.
|> > >
|> > > When I said "100", I said persons or organizations 
|> signing off on a
|> > > document. Surely you have 100 persons to represent an IDNH
|> > > constituency. You should have thousands!
|> > >
|> > > Peter de Blanc
|> > >
|> > > -----Original Message-----
|> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
|> > > Elisabeth Porteneuve
|> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:00 AM
|> > > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> > > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> > > Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request
|> > >
|> > >
|> > >
|> > > "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]> wrote:
|> > > >
|> > > > Are there more than 100 organizations actively 
|> represented in the
|> > > > ccTLD constituency?
|> > > >
|> > > > (We both know the answer is no - about 30
|> > > > actually participate).
|> > >
|> > > ==> You are icorrect Milton.
|> > >
|> > >     We had 95 ccTLD Registries contributing to ICANN 
|> (sending money,
|> > >               more than 1 million USD, all from foreign 
|> countries)
|> > >     We had 98 ccTLD Registries voting in our elections
|> > >     We had 70 ccTLD Registries physically represented at Geneva
|> > >     meeting
|> > >               last February
|> > >
|> > >     If you consider in domain names or in population of 
|> countries from
|> > >     which ccTLD Registries come, and which Local 
|> Internet Communities
|> > >     they represent sometimes, the active participation is
|> > >     approximately 99 percent.
|> > >
|> > >     Elisabeth Porteneuve
|> > >     ccTLD NC rep
|> > >
|> > > >
|> > > > >>> "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]> 08/13/01 07:12PM >>>
|> > > > If and when a set of documents to form the idho, or whatever it
|> > > > evolves to be called, with aa significant number of persons and
|> > > > organizations signing off on it (more than 100) I 
|> would endorse it
|> > > > for
|> > >
|> > > > presentation to the ICANN board.
|> > > >
|> > > >
|> > > >
|> > > > --
|> > > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> > > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> > > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> > > >
|> > > >
|> > >
|> > >
|> > > --
|> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> > >
|> > > --
|> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> > > ("unsubscribe ga-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
|> 
- --
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:19:30 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

if you want to be pessimistic here danny the let me propose another
scenario...

this is supposed to be a "self-organizing" , "bottoms-up"  process and if
the "criteria" your talking about was developed in the manner you prescribe
(i.e. my my associates and myself).. we would almost undoubtedly encounter
indignation on the part of potential "self organizers" over the fact that
some sort of "criteria" or "structure" was being "imposed" on them..

the other 7 constituencies "self organized", developed consensus, and
"reached out" for potential fellow constituents. that way they got what they
wanted in an organizational structure and eligibility criteria.. none of
that  was " imposed" ..

sum & substance.....

bring the NC & the board something with "substance & support" and i will
help make it fly... i have made this committment publicly now for well over
a year & a half ...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Documentation request

> Ken Stubbs is looking for a "concrete proposal".
>
> I would be willing to bet that if a concrete proposal was submitted to the
> Board today, the only response that we would receive would be:
>
> "Whereas the ICANN Board is in receipt of a proposal regarding the
> establishment of a new DNSO constituency;
> Whereas the Names Council has been notified that the ICANN Board expects
to
> receive a bottom-up community-based consensus proposal regarding criteria
> governing the establishment of new constituencies;
> Whereas the Board is not in receipt of such proposal from the Names
Council;
> It is hereby resolved that no action on this matter is to be taken at this
> time."
>
> Perhaps Ken can motivate his associates on the Council to finish drafting
> such criteria before Montevideo.  If they can commit to finishing this
> project by then (the Council Business Plan, after all, was drafted back in
> February), then I am sure that our motivated members can have a concrete
> proposal ready.
>
> If we all cooperate we can get this job done.  Ken, are you willing to
take
> the lead on this in the Council?  Can you settle the issue of "criteria",
so
> that any concrete proposal may be examined in light of this "criteria"?
We
> are awaiting the efforts of the Council.  Can we count on your support to
> have the Council complete its work in a timely fashion?
>

- --
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:22:15 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 06:09:58PM -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
> i am still waiting for concrete "proposals" and all i see here is on this
> list   "unstructured discussion"

What do you think about http://at-large.org?

[hundreds of lines of carelessly quoted material deleted]

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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, 15 Aug 2001 10:23:23 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

At 08:25 15/08/01, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>Milton,
>
>Regardless of your comments about number of ccTLD's participating, that
>has little to do with what I said.
>
>When I said "100", I said persons or organizations signing off on a
>document. Surely you have 100 persons to represent an IDNH constituency.
>You should have thousands!

There are 230 names of people who have signed up for the IDNO and gave 
details that qualified them as members, grown from the original 66 who's 
representatives signed the petition.
The names and the timeline when they signed up can be found on 
www.idno.org/members.htm

- -joop

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

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

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 12:19:18 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

At 04:54 15/08/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Personally, I suspect that on this list we lose track of the dimension of 
the reality: a couple of dozen people should be representative of all 
Individual Domain Name Holders, <snip>

Yes, the can represent, provided that they are elected by a real membership.
But one has to start bottom-up and the large numbers can appear only after 
recognition of the constituency in principle.
It is this dimension of reality that I am concerned with.

Please try to remember that you are elected yourself, ---by how many 
votes?--, to represent the GA on the Task Force.  You must try to represent 
the will of the GA and help the NC produce that recognition in principle.

- -joop

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

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

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 11:57:58 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

At 03:42 15/08/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 11:28:41AM -0700, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > Denying a proposal because one doesn't like the people supporting it is not
> > politics of any honorable variety. It is slimey, subjective, and personal.
> > It also doesn't serve the best interests of the ICANN, in the long run.
>
>It's interesting how you take Miltons characteristically inaccurate and
>insulting statement and run with it.
>
>The "powers that be" may or may not like the personalities involved, but
>the FACT is that the "cyberspace association" (aka as the "IDNO") simply
>does not credibly represent those that it claims to represent.  That is
>a completely sufficient grounds for rejecting it.  In fact, it would have
>been totally irresponsible for the Board to do otherwise.

The Board has not made it clear whose advise they have taken to judge the 
credibility of the IDNO membership signup process.

If anything was lacking, improvements could have been suggested by those 
advisors.
But because they did not reject the petition for recognition at any stage, 
they were spared the need to suggest anything. Smart. But "totally" 
responsible (in the sense of answerable)??

If you allege as FACT that something is "simply" the case, Mr Crispin, it 
should be simple for you to point out why.

You are on record to have disputed the need for a declaration of adhesion. 
You wanted to be listed as a member while promoting the opinion that there 
was no need for an Individuals Constituency in the DNSO.

Logically, the adherence to a Mission Statement as a condition for 
successful signup as a member makes it *more* credible that those who sign 
up wish to be  represented by the organization, its charter and its mission 
statement.

- -joop

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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:52:41 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Tuesday, Tuesday, August 14, 2001, 3:23:23 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 08:25 15/08/01, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>>Milton,
>>
>>Regardless of your comments about number of ccTLD's participating, that
>>has little to do with what I said.
>>
>>When I said "100", I said persons or organizations signing off on a
>>document. Surely you have 100 persons to represent an IDNH constituency.
>>You should have thousands!

> There are 230 names of people who have signed up for the IDNO and gave 
> details that qualified them as members, grown from the original 66 who's 
> representatives signed the petition.
> The names and the timeline when they signed up can be found on 
> www.idno.org/members.htm

An unverifiable list, the validity of which we have only you to vouch
for.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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 #672
************************