Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #683
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, August 19 2001           Volume 01 : Number 683

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

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:20:12 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Seeks Proposals

Just a note, but XTNS is currently accepting proposals for the creation of
new domains -- in any of over 150 languages or character sets. We are also
accepting proposals for territory by territory Registries who may have name
control in partnership with us for that territory for XTNS domain
namespaces. And no, there is no application fee ;-)

[email-masked]

We are also seeking applicants for our names council, which will seek to
dialog with and interface with the dnso, ICANN, IETF, ICANN names council,
ccNICs, etc.

[email-masked]

TL

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System

> Harald and all assembly members,
>
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > --On 16. august 2001 17:51 -0400 "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I should let the IETF and others more knowledgeable than I respond...
many
> > > of these terms were "coined" I believe by those who were the
architects of
> > > the Internet...
> >
> > the first definition of the DNS "domain" concepts in the RFC series were
in
> > RFC 882, by Paul Mockapetris, November 1983.
>
>   I believe that Harald is correct here.
>
> >
> >
> > The first published definition (I believe) of the domain-like name
> > structure is RFC 819, by Jon Postel and Zaw-sing Su, dated August 1982.
>
>   Yes I believe this is also accurate as well...
>
> >
> >
> > I do not believe that Jeff Williams has ever been a registered
participant
> > at a physical IETF meeting.
>
>   Harald is incorrect here...
>
>   2 out of 3 ain't bad though...  >;)  Keep trying Harald, you'll get
there...
>
> >
> >
> >                 Harald
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>

- --
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 11:41:02 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Vany, do you or anyone over there know what a Financier is or a Fund-raiser?

I have been very communicative about the DNSO & it's ICANN's continuing 
wastefulness and disregard for Internet Technology.

WHEN I WRITE THAT YOU SHOULD BE TRYING FOR DONATIONS I MEAN THAT ONLY.

GO GET COMPANIES TO DONATE WHAT YOU NEED.

COMPANIES WILL DONATE WHAT YOU NEED WHEN YOU NEED IT.

YOU WILL NOT KNOW WHO IS WILLING TO DONATE UNTIL YOU ASK.

YOU WILL NOT ASK CORRECTLY UNTIL YOU GET SOME HELP FROM A FINANCIER AND A 
FUND-RAISER.

OR DO YOU THINK YOU AUTOMATICALLY DESERVE HANDOUTS WITHOUT ASKING BECAUSE 
THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING.

GET ORGANIZED, ASK FOR HELP, FOLLOW UP, ... (Maybe try to hire someone who 
has grown a business and remove someone else.)

geesh.

~k

At 07:09 PM 8/17/2001 -0400, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>Kristy:
>
>I haven't made any assumption...did I?
>
>But I think you neither have an idea of with who you are talking.
>
>I am just exposing what I am doing without saying what I am...and I don't
>think that I am
>looking like an idiot only for expressing and at least searching for solutions
>that would be
>as costless as possible for the DNSO.
>
>But, of course, if what you are searching for is that DNSO spends more and
>more money...I won't support solutions that involves spends money when there
>are other solutions.  The NCDNHC is not in the conditions to contribute with
>more than the strictly necesary because we simply don't have the money, and we
>don't profit with the Internet.
>
>So, please, let me know who are you and what are your proposals of solutions
>and then we can make something together in benefit of the DNSO, but making
>attacks doesn't improove anything.
>
>Vany
>
>--
>Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
>Information Technology Specialist
>Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
>e-mail: [email-masked]
>http://www.sdnp.org.pa

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:49:08 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Hi Kristy:

First of all, posting in a public list a private e-mail I sent to you in response
of a private e-mail you sent me, is not appropiate.

Hiring a fundraiser means...money to spend.   And while the fundraiser works,
still we need to pay to organizations that performs the services that DNSO
including the GA enjoys.  And guess who pays...the constituencies.

The Names Council has launched an iniciative to get donations for the DNSO.
Haven't you saw it announced?  If not, I will be pleased to send it to you.  I
hope you or your company be willing to contribute with this iniciative.

Best Regards
Vany

Kristy McKee wrote:

> Vany, do you or anyone over there know what a Financier is or a Fund-raiser?
>
> I have been very communicative about the DNSO & it's ICANN's continuing
> wastefulness and disregard for Internet Technology.
>
> WHEN I WRITE THAT YOU SHOULD BE TRYING FOR DONATIONS I MEAN THAT ONLY.
>
> GO GET COMPANIES TO DONATE WHAT YOU NEED.
>
> COMPANIES WILL DONATE WHAT YOU NEED WHEN YOU NEED IT.
>
> YOU WILL NOT KNOW WHO IS WILLING TO DONATE UNTIL YOU ASK.
>
> YOU WILL NOT ASK CORRECTLY UNTIL YOU GET SOME HELP FROM A FINANCIER AND A
> FUND-RAISER.
>
> OR DO YOU THINK YOU AUTOMATICALLY DESERVE HANDOUTS WITHOUT ASKING BECAUSE
> THAT'S WHAT YOUR DOING.
>
> GET ORGANIZED, ASK FOR HELP, FOLLOW UP, ... (Maybe try to hire someone who
> has grown a business and remove someone else.)
>
> geesh.
>
> ~k
>
> At 07:09 PM 8/17/2001 -0400, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> >Kristy:
> >
> >I haven't made any assumption...did I?
> >
> >But I think you neither have an idea of with who you are talking.
> >
> >I am just exposing what I am doing without saying what I am...and I don't
> >think that I am
> >looking like an idiot only for expressing and at least searching for solutions
> >that would be
> >as costless as possible for the DNSO.
> >
> >But, of course, if what you are searching for is that DNSO spends more and
> >more money...I won't support solutions that involves spends money when there
> >are other solutions.  The NCDNHC is not in the conditions to contribute with
> >more than the strictly necesary because we simply don't have the money, and we
> >don't profit with the Internet.
> >
> >So, please, let me know who are you and what are your proposals of solutions
> >and then we can make something together in benefit of the DNSO, but making
> >attacks doesn't improove anything.
> >
> >Vany
> >
> >--
> >Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> >Information Technology Specialist
> >Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> >e-mail: [email-masked]
> >http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 10:02:24 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Seeks Proposals

At 08:20 18/08/01 -0700, Tim Langdell wrote:
>Just a note, but XTNS is currently accepting proposals for the creation of
>new domains -- in any of over 150 languages or character sets. We are also
>accepting proposals for territory by territory Registries who may have name
>control in partnership with us for that territory for XTNS domain
>namespaces. And no, there is no application fee ;-)

Eh, Tim...
Isn't this a commercial solicitation?

- --Joop--
the Cyberspace Association.
(www.idno.org)
The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 10:11:04 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Best Practices V.1.01

At 07:32 18/08/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>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

Thank you for that effort, Bill.
I am strongly supportive of this initiative.

Technical glitch: Part II, the flowchart, came up empty.

When it is fixed and when part III is ready, please repeat the URL's on 
this list a few times.

Then I would like to initiate as a call for action that the Chair adopts 
this procedures, if not amended, for implementation.

Best regards,

- --
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 15:55:42 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Best Practices V.1.01

Tbanks much, Joop.  So far as I can tell, the flow chart link is
okay -- it's a .pdf file, and slower to download than the seven
year itch.  I hope any others who have problems will so note on
here ([email-masked]) and I'll ask Elisabeth what we can do
about it.  Maybe an HTML version, huh?  (We had tried one
once, but it's not quite as readable.)

As for the URLs, my sig file will repeat them in all my posts,
so that should help. (If anyone else wants to do that, be my
guest! :-)  )

Part III, the Time Line Guide, should be ready in a few days,
I hope.

(There may be a Part IV -- something in the nature of a FAQ
that will address some good questions we've been getting from
folks.)

The notion of a Call for Action is excellent.  This procedure
itself, of course, is NOT adopted, and is in the "dry run" stage.
In terms of the flow chart, it would presumably be at the
"Investigation" stage wherein, in the usual case, there would be
searches for documents and that sort of thing.  When dealing
with an untried procedure, however, the only way I can see
to "investigate" it is to try it out -- we've toyed around with
various "Issues" on which we could do a "dry run," but there
is no reason not to try one on the adoption of the BP itself.
We could also run another "dry run" on something else that in
fact required some development of a factual Basis at the same
time -- these things can run however people want them to run.

Bill

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 07:32 18/08/01 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >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
>
> Thank you for that effort, Bill.
> I am strongly supportive of this initiative.
>
> Technical glitch: Part II, the flowchart, came up empty.
>
> When it is fixed and when part III is ready, please repeat the URL's on
> this list a few times.
>
> Then I would like to initiate as a call for action that the Chair adopts
> this procedures, if not amended, for implementation.
>
> Best regards,

- --

The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
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

- --
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 18:54:43 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Resolution for Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Suppor ting Organization

I don't suppose anyone would have any sympathy if I complained that VeriSign
"is always outnumbered" in the NC?  :)

My apologies; I couldn't resist.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 10:26 PM
To: [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
- --
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 19:42:29 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] XTNS Seeks Proposals

I make no comment on the subject of xtns-

However I do object to the obvious "business and commercial" nature of
this posting to the GA list

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tim
Langdell
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 11:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Seeks Proposals

Just a note, but XTNS is currently accepting proposals for the creation
of new domains -- in any of over 150 languages or character sets. We are
also accepting proposals for territory by territory Registries who may
have name control in partnership with us for that territory for XTNS
domain namespaces. And no, there is no application fee ;-)

[email-masked]

We are also seeking applicants for our names council, which will seek to
dialog with and interface with the dnso, ICANN, IETF, ICANN names
council, ccNICs, etc.

[email-masked]

TL

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Launches New Domain Naming System

> Harald and all assembly members,
>
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > --On 16. august 2001 17:51 -0400 "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" 
> > <[email-masked]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I should let the IETF and others more knowledgeable than I 
> > > respond...
many
> > > of these terms were "coined" I believe by those who were the
architects of
> > > the Internet...
> >
> > the first definition of the DNS "domain" concepts in the RFC series 
> > were
in
> > RFC 882, by Paul Mockapetris, November 1983.
>
>   I believe that Harald is correct here.
>
> >
> >
> > The first published definition (I believe) of the domain-like name 
> > structure is RFC 819, by Jon Postel and Zaw-sing Su, dated August 
> > 1982.
>
>   Yes I believe this is also accurate as well...
>
> >
> >
> > I do not believe that Jeff Williams has ever been a registered
participant
> > at a physical IETF meeting.
>
>   Harald is incorrect here...
>
>   2 out of 3 ain't bad though...  >;)  Keep trying Harald, you'll get
there...
>
> >
> >
> >                 Harald
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. 
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail 
> [email-masked] Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 
> 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 19:50:25 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Resolution for Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Supporting Organization

Not bad, Chuck! ;-)

Hey, on a more realistic level, so are the ccTLDs. 

On a more serious note,  I'd suggest that the Non-Commercials try doing
what the ccTLD does- find some common ground with other constituencies,
on some issues, and work together on them.

Isolationism doesn't work in a political arena. Co-operation and
"give-and-take" work.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gomes,
Chuck
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 6:55 PM
To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Resolution for Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders
Supporting Organization

I don't suppose anyone would have any sympathy if I complained that
VeriSign "is always outnumbered" in the NC?  :)

My apologies; I couldn't resist.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 10:26 PM
To: [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.

(snip)

- --
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 18:19:25 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Seeks Proposals

Just meant to be informative ...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] XTNS Seeks Proposals

> At 08:20 18/08/01 -0700, Tim Langdell wrote:
> >Just a note, but XTNS is currently accepting proposals for the creation
of
> >new domains -- in any of over 150 languages or character sets. We are
also
> >accepting proposals for territory by territory Registries who may have
name
> >control in partnership with us for that territory for XTNS domain
> >namespaces. And no, there is no application fee ;-)
>
> Eh, Tim...
> Isn't this a commercial solicitation?
>
>
> --Joop--
> the Cyberspace Association.
> (www.idno.org)
> The Polling Booth
> www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
>
>
>

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:22:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Resolution for Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Supporting Organization

Hi Peter, Chuck and all:

This is only a proposal of resolution within the NCDNHC.
Not a resolution yet.

Best Regards
Vany

On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Not bad, Chuck! ;-)
>
> Hey, on a more realistic level, so are the ccTLDs.
>
> On a more serious note,  I'd suggest that the Non-Commercials try doing
> what the ccTLD does- find some common ground with other constituencies,
> on some issues, and work together on them.
>
> Isolationism doesn't work in a political arena. Co-operation and
> "give-and-take" work.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gomes,
> Chuck
> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 6:55 PM
> To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Resolution for Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders
> Supporting Organization
>
>
> I don't suppose anyone would have any sympathy if I complained that
> VeriSign "is always outnumbered" in the NC?  :)
>
> My apologies; I couldn't resist.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 10:26 PM
> To: [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.
>
> (snip)
>
> --
> 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
>

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:57:24 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Rick and Jeff.

Thank you for your comments on ICANN funding (or not funding) candidates
travel. 

Would you have any objections if the travel was funded outside of ICANN
?

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 2:18 AM
To: Rick H Wesson
Cc: Peter de Blanc; ga ml; icann board address
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Rick and all assembly members,

  Good point Rick!  ANd again one that has been made time and time
again, yet seemingly ignored by a few of the ICANN BoD, staff and the
NC.

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 #683
************************