Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #682
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 18 2001          Volume 01 : Number 682

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:03:07 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IcannWatch

You are the one who appears in need of perspective!  As usual, you
appear to have nothing productive or constructive to contribute to these
forums.  So, why waste your and our time and energy?  

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> Friday, Friday, August 17, 2001, 9:02:55 AM, Derek Conant wrote:
> 
> > Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
> > http://www.dnsga.org
> 
> > The DNSGA is the author of the ALSC story published today at IcannWatch.
> 
> > I want to make sure that appropriate credit is given to the DNSGA for
> > this submission.
> 
> > The DNSGA submitted the below-mentioned story at 5:00 AM EST this
> > morning using its valid IcannWatch User Login Nickname and Password.
> 
> > It is not correct that certain IcannWatch representatives did not
> > publish the DNSGA's story or give the DNSGA credit for the story.
> 
> > Derek Conant
> > DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> Wrong, as usual
> 
> "What really happened"
> http://www.icannwatch.com/comments.php?op=showreply&tid=1572&sid=300&pid=1564&mode=thread&order=0&thold=#1572
> 
> Maybe Derek needs to read:
> http://www.icannwatch.org/essays/faq.htm#_1_33
> "Why didn't you post my brilliant submission?"
> 
> Maybe Derek's one man "general assembly" needs to get some perspective.
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:12:17 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Dear Rick,
You may be right.

But the use of the PSTN is costly to the candidates and not really 
efficient. Also, the IETF takes decision on programs or concepts everyone 
may visualize on his computer. The NC has to take decisions over human 
beings, some they know f2f,  some of them they do not know f2f.

So actually meeting the candidate is a working cession and should be 
considered as such. The point is not to know who is the better, but what 
actually they have to contribute with. IMHO the problem of the ICANN is 
that many believe the matter is the ICANN, while IMHO the matter is what 
the ICANN can contribute with. So an election is a review time where people 
may dig into new concepts, understand better problems, etc.. because new 
faces explain them in new ways.

IMHO preparing an election is the real work. Afterward orientations are 
committed: innovation and review is provided for free by candidates. I do 
not consider myself as a could-be-Director, I consider that NC and BoD 
people should be educated on some points. I am only interested on these 
points coming across and being addressed. I frankly do not care who will 
address them as far as they are well addressed.

And I am not interested in being elected to address them if I cannot do a 
better job from inside. That is something I also need to evaluate. An 
election is thee way: voters chose a candidate, candidate chose to 
represent the voters, candidate may dialog and reach consensuses. We are 
not fighting, we try together to find the best way to improve the ICANN and 
better serve the Internet Commuity.

Cheers. Jefsey

n 18:42 17/08/01, Rick H Wesson said:
>Danny,
>
>I would encourage the NC not to fund travel to F2F meetings for anyone,
>even if you happen to be one that benefits from such this time around.
>
>With 4 meetings a year, 3 of which cost in the thousands for most to
>attend, I suggest that the NC and other Constituencies focus on having
>decisions made on the mailing lists and teleconferences.
>
>The IETF has a long history, like 20 years, of not making decisions at F2F
>meetings. Instead, all decisions are made via mailing lists and phone
>conferences. The F2F meetings are for doing work, not decision making.
>
>It will be increasingly difficult to justify who gets travel expenses and
>who does not; all the while increasing the operating costs of the DNSO
>which is something we need to keep at a minimum.
>
>We need to encourage everyone to use the facilities of the Internet and
>PSTN to allow everyone a voice, not just those that attend the F2F
>meetings.
>
>best regards,
>
>-rick
>
>Rick Wesson
>CTO Registrars Constituency
>
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > Dear Peter,
> >
> > During the NC's extensive deliberations yesterday on the Board Director
> > election, you, as a representative of the ccTLD Constituency, set the
> > criteria that any candidate running for this job should who be willing to
> > attend Montevideo and meet with the Constituencies face to face. As a 
> direct
> > result of your astute arguments, the first round of vote cast on the
> > election was deferred until Saturday 8th September, decided by a clear
> > majority of the NC. If I understand you correctly, you then indicated that
> > if the reason for non-attendance was financial, then transportation 
> could be
> > provided for candidates, but that a willingness to attend was 
> essential. Let
> > me make a clear statement that I am willing to attend.
> >
> > Notwithstanding the fact that I have not received any invitations to
> > participate in any Constituency meetings in Montevideo, I am eager to 
> do so,
> > and more than happy to make the effort to comply with your requirement of
> > me. I do fully appreciate your concerns, and understand the particular
> > difficulties of using written questions, or teleconferences when liaising
> > with a diverse and multi-lingual membership. Prior to your statement, I saw
> > good, but not vital, reasons for my attendance. Subsequent to your 
> statement
> > and the supporting vote of other NC members, it is obvious that any
> > candidate who does not attend will lose this election.
> >
> > While not wishing to add to your burdens, and in order to not unfairly
> > disadvantage any of my fellow candidates, I am therefore requesting 
> that you
> > make whatever ground, air and lodging arrangements may be necessary for all
> > of us to attend Montevideo.
> >
> > My own position is this. I have family visiting from Europe until the 4th,
> > but could leave on the 5th/6th, which would allow me to attend the ccTLD
> > constituency meeting on the 7th at 2pm, or at your members convenience,
> > another time.
> >
> > Regarding other Constituencies, at the time of writing, I have participated
> > in a 90 minute teleconference with the IPC, and submitted responses to
> > written questions posed off-list by the gTLD. I can only assume that any
> > other constituency requirements will be forthcoming, including the BC, from
> > whom I have not yet heard.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:13:50 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] IcannWatch

Friday, Friday, August 17, 2001, 12:03:07 PM, Derek Conant wrote:

> You are the one who appears in need of perspective!  As usual, you
> appear to have nothing productive or constructive to contribute to these
> forums.  So, why waste your and our time and energy?  

I prefer to deal in facts and reality, Derek.

- -- 
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:15:47 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

You don't know what you're talking about concerning this matter.  You
don't represent IcannWatch.  It appears that you have a problem with
submitting comments just to be antagonistic and nonconstructive.  You
would probably do better finding something else to do with your time. 
You appear more in the way here than anything else.

The point I was making concerning IcannWatch representatives not giving
the DNSGA credit for its story and why I believe they did not was made
clear. 

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> Friday, Friday, August 17, 2001, 9:56:40 AM, Derek Conant wrote:
> 
> > The significant matter I was pointing out is that the DNSGA wrote a
> > similar story and submitted it to IcannWatch before Michael Froomkin
> > decided to publish your story.  The DNSGA story should have been
> > published first, whereas, IcannWatch purports to be a fair reporting
> > organization and forum concerning matters related to the ICANN
> > processes.  It is not correct that such an organization give the
> > appearance of organized censorship concerning matters related to the
> > ICANN processes, as in this case.
> 
> More accurately, ICANNWatch is a private operation, which uses its
> discretion on publishing stories.  They do not, nor should they,
> publish every submission.
> 
> Your story was not really worth publishing, in my opinion, and I agree
> with their decision not to publish it.  It was very self serving, and
> not the kind of article that ICANNWatch normally accepts.
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:04:08 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

The DNSGA website identifies more than just myself directing the DNSGA. 
So, grow up and get off of that lame trip.  It is true that I am the
most vocal in these forums for the DNSGA, however, that will change. The
facts are that the DNSGA probably has more merit in its organization
processes and consensus processes and members than does the DNSO GA. 
Time will tell if this is the case.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

William X Walsh wrote:
> 
> Friday, Friday, August 17, 2001, 12:15:47 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
> 
> > You don't know what you're talking about concerning this matter.  You
> > don't represent IcannWatch.  It appears that you have a problem with
> > submitting comments just to be antagonistic and nonconstructive.  You
> > would probably do better finding something else to do with your time.
> > You appear more in the way here than anything else.
> 
> > The point I was making concerning IcannWatch representatives not giving
> > the DNSGA credit for its story and why I believe they did not was made
> > clear.
> 
> They didn't give you credit because they chose not to publish it.
> 
> Which looks like the right decision, in my opinion.
> 
> You can believe anything you want, I prefer facts and reality.
> 
> Your "one man" general assembly not withstanding, Derek, the article
> was nothing but self serving drivel.  Your criticism of them for not
> publishing it was out of line, and without merit.
> 
> No one agrees with you, get over it.
> 
> --
> 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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:58:40 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IcannWatch

Any one of the 'Conant proposed ...' points would be 
sufficient reason not to publish.

All of them taken together guarantee it wouldn't be 
published.

Hell - the fact you claim to be the President and Chairman 
of the one member DNSGA is sufficient reason not to 
publish  

Not withstanding the fact that its THEIR site, not yours.

pheather

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:20:23 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Business Constituency follow up with Candidates

Joanna, thank you for following up on this. The BC had a call this a.m. and
I just returned to my office after a day outside and offline  to post to the
BC list with a suggested approach. I was then sorting out how to notify the
candidates, and here you are in my in-box! 

Sorry to have just seen this earlier... Glad I caught  it before heading off
from work!

We will post a suggested set of questions, after a bit of internal review
with the BC reps, on Monday directly to the candidates -- we wish to also
rely heavily on the extensive and informative comments arranged through the
GA process and we have asked our Secretariat to arrange to make it "easy"
for the BC members to find those.

We suggest that we post a few additional, more BC specific questions related
to our existing positions as the BC, and not burden the candidates to repeat
their responses to the GA, but in essence, to just add to them by responding
to the additional few questions.  You should all feel free to append any
previous submissions to the GA or anyone else, or to include any other
materials you want, of course, to your responses.  We will ask that you
provide your responses to our Secretariat, who will post them and send an
email alert to the BC list advising them of the submissions. 

I hope this "heads up" is helpful to all the candidates. 

Thanks,Joanna, for making this a little easier for me, by including your
fellow candidate's emails in one place!

Best regards, Marilyn Cade/for the Business Constituency

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 12:49 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Danny Younger; ga ml; Paul M. Kane; Jefsey Morfin; Amadeu Abril i
Abril; Eric Jonvel 'Eric Jonvel'
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Dear Marilyn,

On a point of clarification, during yesterday's teleconference, I understood
you to say that you would be contacting Board Candidates with a view to
arranging a Teleconference with the BC, and/or submitting written questions
in due course. If that is correct, when might we expect this to be
forthcoming? 

I am also attaching a copy of a related post, just posted to the GA list,
which is self explanatory, and should also have been copied to my fellow
candidates.

Regards,
Joanna

on 8/17/01 12:04 PM, Joanna Lane at [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Peter,
> 
> During the NC's extensive deliberations yesterday on the Board Director
> election, you, as a representative of the ccTLD Constituency, set the
> criteria that any candidate running for this job should who be willing to
> attend Montevideo and meet with the Constituencies face to face. As a
direct
> result of your astute arguments, the first round of vote cast on the
> election was deferred until Saturday 8th September, decided by a clear
> majority of the NC. If I understand you correctly, you then indicated that
> if the reason for non-attendance was financial, then transportation could
be
> provided for candidates, but that a willingness to attend was essential.
Let
> me make a clear statement that I am willing to attend.
> 
> Notwithstanding the fact that I have not received any invitations to
> participate in any Constituency meetings in Montevideo, I am eager to do
so,
> and more than happy to make the effort to comply with your requirement of
> me. I do fully appreciate your concerns, and understand the particular
> difficulties of using written questions, or teleconferences when liaising
> with a diverse and multi-lingual membership. Prior to your statement, I
saw
> good, but not vital, reasons for my attendance. Subsequent to your
statement
> and the supporting vote of other NC members, it is obvious that any
> candidate who does not attend will lose this election.
> 
> While not wishing to add to your burdens, and in order to not unfairly
> disadvantage any of my fellow candidates, I am therefore requesting that
you
> make whatever ground, air and lodging arrangements may be necessary for
all
> of us to attend Montevideo.
> 
> My own position is this. I have family visiting from Europe until the 4th,
> but could leave on the 5th/6th, which would allow me to attend the ccTLD
> constituency meeting on the 7th at 2pm, or at your members convenience,
> another time.
> 
> Regarding other Constituencies, at the time of writing, I have
participated
> in a 90 minute teleconference with the IPC, and submitted responses to
> written questions posed off-list by the gTLD. I can only assume that any
> other constituency requirements will be forthcoming, including the BC,
from
> whom I have not yet heard.
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna 

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:46:44 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

actually the author was J.K. Rowling  .......

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Conant" <[email-masked]>
To: "Mikael Pawlo" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Derek Conant" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 12:56 PM
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

> The significant matter I was pointing out is that the DNSGA wrote a
> similar story and submitted it to IcannWatch before Michael Froomkin
> decided to publish your story.  The DNSGA story should have been
> published first, whereas, IcannWatch purports to be a fair reporting
> organization and forum concerning matters related to the ICANN
> processes.  It is not correct that such an organization give the
> appearance of organized censorship concerning matters related to the
> ICANN processes, as in this case.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Derek Conant wrote:
> > > Domain Name System General Assembly (DNSGA)
> > > http://www.dnsga.org
> > > The DNSGA is the author of the ALSC story published today at
IcannWatch.
> >
> > No, that is not correct. I am the author, since I submitted the story
> > published by ICANNwatch (
http://www.icannwatch.com/article.php?sid=300 ).
> > If you read the story you see that it is quite different from your
> > submission.
> >
> > > I want to make sure that appropriate credit is given to the DNSGA for
> > > this submission.
> >
> > Approriate credit is already given.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Mikael Pawlo
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:51:36 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

have we abandoned the concept of posting limits  ?
this thread is becoming absurd ...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Derek Conant" <[email-masked]>
To: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Derek Conant" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

> The DNSGA website identifies more than just myself directing the DNSGA.
> So, grow up and get off of that lame trip.  It is true that I am the
> most vocal in these forums for the DNSGA, however, that will change. The
> facts are that the DNSGA probably has more merit in its organization
> processes and consensus processes and members than does the DNSO GA.
> Time will tell if this is the case.
>
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
>
> William X Walsh wrote:
> >
> > Friday, Friday, August 17, 2001, 12:15:47 PM, Derek Conant wrote:
> >
> > > You don't know what you're talking about concerning this matter.  You
> > > don't represent IcannWatch.  It appears that you have a problem with
> > > submitting comments just to be antagonistic and nonconstructive.  You
> > > would probably do better finding something else to do with your time.
> > > You appear more in the way here than anything else.
> >
> > > The point I was making concerning IcannWatch representatives not
giving
> > > the DNSGA credit for its story and why I believe they did not was made
> > > clear.
> >
> > They didn't give you credit because they chose not to publish it.
> >
> > Which looks like the right decision, in my opinion.
> >
> > You can believe anything you want, I prefer facts and reality.
> >
> > Your "one man" general assembly not withstanding, Derek, the article
> > was nothing but self serving drivel.  Your criticism of them for not
> > publishing it was out of line, and without merit.
> >
> > No one agrees with you, get over it.
> >
> > --
> > 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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:49:32 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Where is the second half of the recorded ALSC meeting?

Where is the second half of the recorded Aug. 13 ALSC outreach meeting
held at VeriSign headquarters? 

I attended and participated in the Aug. 13 ALSC outreach meeting held at
VeriSign headquarters? I listened to the WorldCom audio-stream
concerning the meeting and I realize that the recording has been edited
and the second half of the meeting is not included in the audio-stream. 
The audio-stream currently presented at WorldCom does not fully
represent the significant statements and information presented at the
ALSC meeting.  

Before I start to dig into this matter, can someone please explain to me
where the second half of the recorded ALSC meeting and audio-stream is
located?

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:14:46 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] daily post limits ?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C12759.4269FF20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

a.. Subject: [ga] Where is the second half of the recorded ALSC meeting? =

a.. From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C12759.4269FF20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4207.2601" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>
<LI><EM>Subject</EM>: [ga] Where is the second half of the recorded ALSC =

meeting?=20
<LI><EM>From</EM>: Derek Conant &lt;<A=20
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</A>&gt; </LI></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_01B1_01C12759.4269FF20--

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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:34:42 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Business Constituency:  Charter and ByLaws Violations

I am rather leery of existing constituencies seeking to impose new criteria 
on new constituencies especially when our current constituencies don't honor 
their own sets of rules.

Our constituencies are expected to act in accordance with the proposals 
(charters) received by the Corporation (see ICANN Resolutions 27 May, 1999), 
as well as in accordance with the ByLaws.  Yet the Business Constituency is 
in violation of both its own charter and the ICANN ByLaws concurrently.

The charter of the Business Constituency states:  

"(ii)  In order to assure sectoral balance consistent with the Business 
Constituency's mission and purpose described under I, at most one Names 
Concil representative may belong to or represent an identifiable business 
sector."

At this time, two current Names Council representatives, Marilyn Cade and 
Grant Forsythe, both represent the Telcom sector.   Grant Forsyth is 
identified as Manager, Industry & Regulatory Affairs
CLEAR Communications Ltd.  Their website, clear.co.nz, identifies the company 
as follows:

CLEAR's focus on business, its innovation, and its state-of-the-art fibre 
optic digital network set it apart as one of New Zealand's leading 
communications companies. Its attitude has always distinguished it from the 
competition.  It began in 1991 when CLEAR first set new standards for 
telecommunications in New Zealand. Today it's stronger that ever.   CLEAR is 
wholly-owned by BT. A world leader in telecommunications, BT gives CLEAR 
access to the Concert global network as well as to formidable research and 
development resources. 

Marilyn Cade is well known as a lobbyist for AT&T, also a telecommunications 
firm.  As such, we have two names Council representatives who both belong to 
the same identifiable business sector, a Charter violation.

It is also to be noted that our ByLaws state:  

"The DNSO shall consist of (i) a Names Council ("NC"), consisting of 
representatives of constituencies as described in Section 3 of this Article 
VI-B ("Constituencies") elected by those Constituencies."

The Business Constituency never held an election in which Marilyn Cade 
emerged the winner.    She is an appointee filling the seat vacated by 
Theresa Swinehart; therefore we have a ByLaws violation.

The Business constituency Charter further states:  

III. Procedure for substantive decision-making. Subsidiary and support bodies 
- --
1. For each policy work item arising from the need to provide support to the 
business constituency representatives on the Names Council, the secretariat 
shall call for volunteers to sit on a research committee whose mandate shall 
be tied to the work item in question. This invitation for volunteers shall be 
accompanied by a set of specific criteria to ensure that members of research 
committees have a knowledge of, and experience with, issues relevant to the 
work of the DNSO that is appropriate for the purpose for which the research 
committee is created. The secretariat shall publish the names of volunteers 
who are finally appointed, together with their credentials. The secretariat 
shall circulate any recommendations produced by such research committees 
among the members of the Business Constituency for consultation. This process 
shall be repeated until consensus has been achieved, always within the time 
frame of DNSO decisions, which may require a quick decision.. 

This well-conceived process has never been followed by the Business 
Constituency; no such research committee recommendations or other such 
details have ever been published (because they don't exist).  At best, an NC 
member will draft a statement, and if there are no comments received within 
10 days (and there never are), the draft is forwarded as the position of the 
BC.

Their Charter further states:  

"The secretariat shall use their best efforts to give small and medium-sized 
enterprises an adequate voice in all Business Constituency work processes. 
These efforts may include, but not be limited to, the organization of 
democratic elections for representatives of organizations of small and medium 
sized businesses (SMEs) to sit on an SME Consultative Committee whose advice 
shall be solicited on substantive policy work items."  

This has never happened.  Even though I and Jefsey are both ostensibly 
members of this constituency, our advice (as SMEs) has never been solicited.  
Furthermore, neither of our company names is cited on the current Business 
Constituency membership roster.   

Our Bylaws require each ICANN subordinate entity to "operate to the maximum 
extent feasible in an open and transparent manner".  The BC has no publicly 
archived mailing list.  How then can they maintain that they are operating in 
an open manner to the maximum extent feasible?

At this time the BC is no more than a cartel representing primarily Telcoms 
and intellectual property interests which seem to have no difficulty being in 
violation of their own rules while seeking to impose additional restrictions 
on others.  There is no hesitancy on the part of the BC to deny individuals a 
voice in the ICANN process.  The current BC position paper on the At-Large 
(drafted by Marilyn Cade) states:

"For now, we believe there should be five regionally elected At-Large 
representatives on the ICANN Board - one per region."  
http://www.bizconst.org/positions/BCatlargepositionv4.doc

Instead of the nine At-Large Directors that we were promised (to represent 
the rights of individuals on the ICANN Board), this Constituency seeks to 
have it permanently reduced to five.  

As long as they intend to deny individuals their right to participate in the 
ICANN process, I feel no personal remorse in challenging their fitness as a 
Constituency.  While they are in violation of their Charter and the ByLaws, 
their status as a constituency should be suspended by 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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:26:00 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Resolution for Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Supporting Organization

Dear members, 

The following resolution has been advanced within the Non-Commercial 
Constituency.  While it is too early to tell whether the proposition will 
meet with any degree of success, it does highlight the frustration that many 
of us are feeling...

August. 17, 2001

YJ Park

                                    Resolution for
Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Supporting Organization

The current Non-Commercial Domain Names Holders Constituency of Domain Names 
Supporting Organization has been recognized by the ICANN Board in Santiago in 
August ICANN meeting, 2000.

Since then, non-commercial domain names holders constituency has been 
encountering an endless challenge in the DNSO. It is always outnumbered in 
DNSO decision-making process by the majority votes.

It turned out that it is almost impossible for Non-commercial domain name 
holders constituency to address its concerns which has been many times quite 
different from the other constituencies especially commercial-based 
constituencies easily to be buried due to innate DNSO imbalanced structure, 
five commercial constituencies, Registrar, ISP, IP, Business, gTLD, one 
non-commercial and ccTLD [note1], which has been pointed out by WG-Review 
report earlier this year and by At-Large Study Committee process, recently.

On the other hand, there have been concerns expressed by NCDNHC members that 
there are too diverse interests mixed in this same group under the name of 
non-commercial domain names holders
constituency, which is too vague to define its common ground and too broad to 
reach consensus many times within the constituency: There are education and 
research organizations, civil society groups, consumer groups, activist 
groups for citizens, non-commercial
purpose lobbyist groups etc..

Therefore, the non-commercial domain name holders constituency of the DNSO 
hereby declare its withdrawl from DNSO in Montevideo and its new formation of 
Non-Commercial Domain Names Holders Supporting Organization, NCSO.

[Note1] ccTLD is difficult to categorize whether it is commercial or 
non-commercial in a simple way.

- --
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, 18 Aug 2001 00:46:27 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] State of the Domain Report -- 2nd Quarter 2001

For those of you interested in registrar issues, the second quarter 2001 
snapnames.com report on the "State of the Domain" has some rather interesting 
statistics and a flow chart to better understand the deletion cycle.  
Additionally it offers a very interesting commentary on the Second Advisory 
Concerning Equitable Allocation of Shared Registration System Resources.

If you are not familiar with this resource, for a free subscription,  send a 
blank e-mail to:
[email-masked].  
- --
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, 18 Aug 2001 12:40:35 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

Ken Stubbs wrote on 17.08.01, 19:51:36:
> have we abandoned the concept of posting limits  ?

We definitely haven't.
For those who seem to have forgotten:
It's *five* postings per person, list and 24 hours time 
period calculated according to the time of the sender.
Excess postings will be dealt with by the list monitors.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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, 18 Aug 2001 07:32:58 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Best Practices V.1.01

The DNSO Secretariat has kindly posted version V.1.01 of
the Best Practices draft. The URLs are:
DNSO cite (under "Other Information Documents"; "August
2001: Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA"):
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf

Bill Lovell

- --
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 #682
************************