Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #673
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, August 15 2001          Volume 01 : Number 673

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 17:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> 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..

Ken,

If the Names Council is doing it's job it will utilize a set of
reasonably well-defined criteria in evaluating any proposal for an IDNH
that is seperate from the parties involved in making proposals. The Names
Council has provided no such criteria, and what Danny and others
seem to be asking for is that this be provided. Since Names Council
approval seems to be a requirement to any successful petition, this would
seem to be a completely reasonable request.

Without such criteria, those wishing to make a proposal will have no idea
what they should be aiming for to meet with the Names Council approval, and
the Names Council is free to use any arbitrary criteria it sees fit to accept
or deny an application.

Perhaps you can use a basket? Those proposals that are maybes go in the
basket.... oh wait, that's already been done. [apologies to those that
weren't at MDR for the TLD selection show ]

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 03:15:17 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

Dear Ken, Danny, Peter, and others,
the problem with the IDNHC - as with the IUC - is to start moving:
a secretariat, a site, an organization which has to develop before
people are gathered and start discussing, so before there is anything.

This means two things:
- - an existing organization with resources - even minimum but
   including a banking account
- - and some money to put into the account.

The world@wide foundation can provide a small organization, banking
account and initial site provided it gets some helps. Its role is NOT
to get involved, just to help with practical aspects. This way everyone
could share into the project (since everyone is supportive) while no
one would be suspicious about "hidden agenda" or "imposed" structures.

Once the we would start compiling information it would be passed
to IDNHC sub list on the GA. And the world@wide would handle the
site, sites, etc... to the IDNHC as created by the DN Holders with
most probably the help of everyone here. We know that Joop, DPF,
Joana are ready to commit resources enough for a nice document.

But it would be very nice if we could find some funding. So if anyone
has concrete suggestion. I think we could manage with a few
thousands. Would NSI be willing to help and share into the project
or any Registrars or new TLD?

I suppose this could be a loan as the constituency could make paid
the use of its label as some quality certificate for DN seller. If only
one or 2 cent per DN were donated to the IDNHC in exchange, it
would have its budget.

Jefsey

.

On 02:19 15/08/01, Ken Stubbs said:
>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

- --
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 21:22:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

Ken,

Pardon me if I sounded at all pessimistic.  I do believe that you can 
spearhead this effort in the Council, and only seek to remind you of the 
explicit language of the Business Plan to which the Council has committed 
itself:

The original language stated the following:
5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential 
contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's 
constituency.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00003.doc

This language was then modified by Erica:
5.4 New Constituencies: Review and clarify process for creation of new 
constituencies
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00004.doc

The change in wording was acceptable to your Chair:
"Erica, thanks for your insight. I support both your changes.  Philip."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/msg00016.html

The Business Plan was then ratified at the Melbourne session.

As the Council has already made the decision to "clarify the process", we are 
waiting for the Council to get its job done.
 
Quoting Erica:  "I believe it is more important for us to focus on the 
process issue than on the specific question of whether an Individual 
Constituency should be established.  Once the process is clarified, then it 
is clear what hoops any group (including those who wish to establish an 
individuals constituency) will have to jump thru in order to get recognition."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/msg00015.html

If you can facilitate this "clarification", we will offer you all necessary 
support.
- --
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 03:29:49 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

On 02:22 15/08/01, Kent Crispin said:
>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?

I am sorry. I cannot enroll as your are Brittish in your constituency 
definition. Also this is pure Dennis Jennings. Why to use the words @large 
within the poor DNSO...
I am Member of the DNSO/BC... I will apply to NonCom. And was/am in the 
IDNO. You know people may wera several hats.
This restrictions put aside, your text shows that everyone agree more or 
less and brings its own proposition. This is good.
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 18:47:41 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Tuesday, Tuesday, August 14, 2001, 4:57:58 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 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.

A constituency has no need for a "mission statement" as its mission
will vary depending on the will of the members, which may change even
week to week.  Any such statements as mandatory membership
requirements would only serve to stifle the constituency.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:04:20 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Thank you, Joop!

The first rational answer to my post!

You may recall from Santiago, I believe, my strong support for your
efforts!

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 6:23 PM
To: Peter de Blanc; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [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: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 23:16:48 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

I'd suggest that you (those of you who wish to organize the IDNHC)
arrange for your own funding, at least until you have a non-profit
corporation, a bank account, a secretariat, and maybe even a part-time
"policy officer" or executive.  Then you could propose entering into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ICANN, similar to the Regional
ASOs.

You should be able to accomplish that for US $ 50,000. 200 people at $
250 each could be "founders" 

You have to start from a position of strength if you want to get
anywhere. Once you are established, and gain mailing list support of,
say 1 million or so DN holders, you might be able to suggest that the
registrars or registries kick in a percent or something towards funding.

It will NOT work to ask for funding to a non-incorporated body that has
only 100 or 200 or even 500 Domain name holders, as being representative
of a majority of IDNH persons.

After all, even 1.0 percent of US $ 250 million in domain name fees
would be $ 2.5 million dollars. That is 5 times the CENTR budget, 25
times the ccTLD budget, and about 50% of the budget of ICANN itself.

This is a serious post. There is no sarcasm here. It is my considered
suggestion as to a possible way for you to move forward.

Pet3er de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

Dear Ken, Danny, Peter, and others,
the problem with the IDNHC - as with the IUC - is to start moving: a
secretariat, a site, an organization which has to develop before people
are gathered and start discussing, so before there is anything.

This means two things:
- - an existing organization with resources - even minimum but
   including a banking account
- - and some money to put into the account.

The world@wide foundation can provide a small organization, banking
account and initial site provided it gets some helps. Its role is NOT to
get involved, just to help with practical aspects. This way everyone
could share into the project (since everyone is supportive) while no one
would be suspicious about "hidden agenda" or "imposed" structures.

Once the we would start compiling information it would be passed to
IDNHC sub list on the GA. And the world@wide would handle the site,
sites, etc... to the IDNHC as created by the DN Holders with most
probably the help of everyone here. We know that Joop, DPF, Joana are
ready to commit resources enough for a nice document.

But it would be very nice if we could find some funding. So if anyone
has concrete suggestion. I think we could manage with a few thousands.
Would NSI be willing to help and share into the project or any
Registrars or new TLD?

I suppose this could be a loan as the constituency could make paid the
use of its label as some quality certificate for DN seller. If only one
or 2 cent per DN were donated to the IDNHC in exchange, it would have
its budget.

Jefsey

.

On 02:19 15/08/01, Ken Stubbs said:
>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

- --
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 23:18:24 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] VeriSign Global Registry Monthly Operator Reports

Dear gTLD representatives,

The VeriSign Global Registry Monthly Operator Reports appear to be current 
only up to May 31.  When can we expect to see the June and July reports 
posted to the constituency website?

Also, at some point, might you consider publicly archiving the "Community 
Feedback" that you receive at your website?  
- --
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 23:20:14 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

Why do you guys (and gals) continue to dig up all this diversionary
rhetoric and citations?

1. The ICANN bylaws provide the mechanism for constituency creation.

2. Many, if not most, NC members and Board members support the idea.

My suggestion is to get to work, establish a corporation, with by-laws,
charter, bank account, and prepart a (current, year 2001) document for
submission.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:23 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

Ken,

Pardon me if I sounded at all pessimistic.  I do believe that you can 
spearhead this effort in the Council, and only seek to remind you of the

explicit language of the Business Plan to which the Council has
committed 
itself:

The original language stated the following:
5.4 Individuals Constituency. Review the need, uniqueness, potential 
contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's 
constituency. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00003.doc

This language was then modified by Erica:
5.4 New Constituencies: Review and clarify process for creation of new 
constituencies http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00004.doc

The change in wording was acceptable to your Chair:
"Erica, thanks for your insight. I support both your changes.  Philip."
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/msg00016.html

The Business Plan was then ratified at the Melbourne session.

As the Council has already made the decision to "clarify the process",
we are 
waiting for the Council to get its job done.
 
Quoting Erica:  "I believe it is more important for us to focus on the 
process issue than on the specific question of whether an Individual 
Constituency should be established.  Once the process is clarified, then
it 
is clear what hoops any group (including those who wish to establish an 
individuals constituency) will have to jump thru in order to get
recognition." http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/msg00015.html

If you can facilitate this "clarification", we will offer you all
necessary 
support.
- --
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 23:22:57 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Documentation request

I do not agree, William.

You need some kind of mission statement, however broad, to set the tone
and purpose of your organization.

I would not join an organization unless I knew its purpose.

You will not be able to get NC members and ICANN board members to accept
a new constituency without some definition of what that constituency is
and what its mission is.

Peter de Blanc

(I may have exceeded my posting limit!)

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of William
X Walsh
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 9:48 PM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: Kent Crispin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Tuesday, Tuesday, August 14, 2001, 4:57:58 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 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.

A constituency has no need for a "mission statement" as its mission will
vary depending on the will of the members, which may change even week to
week.  Any such statements as mandatory membership requirements would
only serve to stifle the constituency.

- -- 
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

- --
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 23:53:04 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Advisory Concerning Unqualified .info "Sunrise" Registrations 

An ICANN advisory has been posted at:  
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr14aug01.htm
- --
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 12:43:49 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request

At 10:23 15/08/01, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>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.

On the contrary. One of the first things the early steering committee 
agreed upon was exactly to promote such a scheme.
There was one CORE/afilias registrar who has actually put up such a banner 
link to the CA-idno.
  Bob Connolly  of PSI-Japan deserves the credit for that. We got some 
members through that link.
But it is no longer there.

- --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 21:41:41 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Advisory Concerning Unqualified .info "Sunrise" Registrations

And thus, without any authority from any national or international
body that has any legal competence to address the issue, ICANN
is now determining the rights to domain names based on trademark
law over which it likewise has no competence (in every sense of the
word) or authority.

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> An ICANN advisory has been posted at:
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr14aug01.htm
> --
> 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

- --
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 22:03:20 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Tuesday, Tuesday, August 14, 2001, 8:22:57 PM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I do not agree, William.

> You need some kind of mission statement, however broad, to set the tone
> and purpose of your organization.

> I would not join an organization unless I knew its purpose.

This is not an organization, its a constituency.  The ccTLD
Constituency is not an organization, it is a means for representation
of those who qualify for membership.  That is its sole "mission."

> You will not be able to get NC members and ICANN board members to accept
> a new constituency without some definition of what that constituency is
> and what its mission is.

The definition of a constituency is who qualifies for membership.

The only mission a constituency can have is to be an instrument of
representation in the DNSO process for those who qualify as its
members.

Anything unless is unnecessary and counterproductive.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 22:30:57 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Documentation request 

|> From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 8:17 PM
|> 
|> I'd suggest that you (those of you who wish to organize the IDNHC)
|> arrange for your own funding, at least until you have a non-profit
|> corporation, a bank account, a secretariat, and maybe even a 
|> part-time
|> "policy officer" or executive.  Then you could propose 
|> entering into a
|> Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ICANN, similar to the Regional
|> ASOs.
|> 
|> You should be able to accomplish that for US $ 50,000. 200 
|> people at $
|> 250 each could be "founders" 
|> 
|> You have to start from a position of strength if you want to get
|> anywhere. Once you are established, and gain mailing list support of,
|> say 1 million or so DN holders, you might be able to suggest that the
|> registrars or registries kick in a percent or something 
|> towards funding.
|> 
|> It will NOT work to ask for funding to a non-incorporated 
|> body that has
|> only 100 or 200 or even 500 Domain name holders, as being 
|> representative
|> of a majority of IDNH persons.

Thank you Peter. This very point is one that I brought up often. One fear is
that separate incorporation would disqualify a group from being a
constituency. None of the original SO's are thus incorporated, even the BC.
They are all a part of the ICANN corporation.

One of the main purposes, for incorporating, was exactly the issue you
mention here, how do you fund something that doesn't legally exist? Without
funding, there is no way to do recruitment.

|> After all, even 1.0 percent of US $ 250 million in domain name fees
|> would be $ 2.5 million dollars. That is 5 times the CENTR budget, 25
|> times the ccTLD budget, and about 50% of the budget of ICANN itself.
|> 
|> This is a serious post. There is no sarcasm here. It is my considered
|> suggestion as to a possible way for you to move forward.

I think it is the only way to move foward. Especially, in the face of stout
opposition.
- --
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 01:51:05 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Report of the ALSC meeting

Report of the ALSC meeting.

http://www0.mercurycenter.com/business/top/017753.htm

- --
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 10:58:13 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Documentation request

Kent Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

==> It starts:

    "The proposed At-Large Constituency (ALC) of the DNSO (not to be 
    confused with the proposed At-Large Membership of ICANN) 
    is intended to fill the widely acknowledged representational 
    gap in the DNSO structure ..."

==> Why not take a synergy with At-Large ?

    Several people have been contributing on this list about
    Individuals being not only consumers but also producers
    of content. 
    Indeed, it is (was ?) one of the paramount strenghts of 
    the Internet, the possibility to everybody to be both, 
    consumer and producer.
    This possibility request for several things to be granted,
    two important of them are: IP number and domain name.

    Now, have a look on market cost for domain names - few USD 
    up to 35 USD per year. Free within many ccTLDs. Cheap.
    But what about a cost of ONE IP address for an Individual 
    willing to get an ADSL at his home ?
    I know about Individuals being requested more than 600 USD 
    per year for ONE IP address for an ADSL line (and this IP 
    address is not granted to remain the same, several providers
    change it each few weeks).

    The rivers of comments has been sent out about domain
    names, there is a dangereous silence about IP numbers.

    I do believe it makes much more sense if the Mission Statement
    of Individuals organization within ICANN, which is still
    to be devised, could focus on preserving the possibility 
    to Individuals to be both on the Internet, producer and consumer.
    To well describe what are fundamentals to that (IP number
    and domain name, but also freedom of choice of operating system
    and softwares for PC of Individuals).
    It implies subsequently to consider responsibilities and duties
    of everybody.

    Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
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 11:14:40 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Another committee of cronies?

Joop,

>
>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.

I think we agree in principle on the need for an individual constituency 
(you may remember that I was one of the early supporters of this 
constituency, when it was not "fashionable" yet).
The disagreement is only on the fact that I don't see the NC recognition as 
a prerequisite *before* starting to work at a new charter and recruitment of 
supporters.
IMHO, we should continue the discussion that started with some interesting 
postings about "Registrants", and that unfortunately died out. There is 
nothing better to support our request to NC (and later to ICANN) than a 
sound proposal, even in a draft status.

>
>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.

And I believe that this is what I am doing, as a GA representative (if you 
don't think this is true, please tell me why).
But this will not prevent me (as an individual) to warn against the belief 
that recognition by the NC of the principle of an Individual/Registrant 
constituency will solve all the problems.

The Constituency will not be given to us on a silver plate without hard work 
from our part. In every negotiation failure to present continuously new 
elements will inevitably bring to a stall.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #673
************************