Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #684
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, August 20 2001           Volume 01 : Number 684

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

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 18:55:44 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net-block issues

William X Walsh wrote on 15.08.01, 10:33:03:
> Registries should not be involved in MAPS like operations at all.
>
> You can't seriously be suggesting that?
>
> MAPS is not a functionality, it is a disfunctionality, and if it is to
> exist at all, it should be managed privately.

This is a reply to an 'old' message, but I just found
this in the .name agreement:

 Registry Operator further reserves the right to implement additional 
 anti-spam measures, such as using MAPS RBL, to block UCE or mail 
 from systems with a history of abuse from entering the Registry 
 Operator's mail-forwarding service. 
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/name/registry-agmt-appc-1-03jul01.htm#d

I remember the standard ICANN "What we do and what we don't"
presentation, e.g. slide 40 from the Melbourne presentation
  http://www.icann.org/presentations/melbourne-orientation-ajm.ppt
putting "Spam" in the category "What ICANN doesn't do". Note that I 
for one think ICANN could hardly have avoided this issue from coming
up when dealing with such an e-mail forwarding offer by a 
registry operator. But it is interesting to see how difficult it
is to predict what exactly is in ICANN's scope and what isn't.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

> Wednesday, Wednesday, August 15, 2001, 8:38:35 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>> The fundimental process disconnect here is that, IMHO, the various
>> registries should be performing the MAPS function as part of their policy
>> enforcement mechanism. This is not written into any of the
>> r	egistrar/registry agreements.

>> If anything argues for a centralised systems approach, the MAPS
>> functionality does. IMHO, this makes it an ICANN issue. Yes, this also
>> politicizes it somewhat. No, some NANOG denizens won't like it and that is
>> guaranteed.

> --
> 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

_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
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 10:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .Sex Domain Names available Today! 1701716 (fwd)

More Spam!

The scarry thing is that their site looks good. I do wonder how they
are affiliated with Verisign, they have a VeriSign logo plastered all over
their page.

- -rick

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:24:08 -0700
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: .Sex Domain Names available Today! 1701716

The newest domain name extensions are here .SEX!!!  It's the fresh ,new,
exciting web address that is taking the world by storm.

Why be .com when you can now be .SEX

Register your .SEX domain name today exclusively at:

http://www.dotsex.com

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be taken off the mailing list please click below:
http://www.dotsex.com/unsubscribe.phtml

********

- --
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 14:07:35 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] IcannWatch

I can accept the 5 postings limit per person and I did not realize that
I had posted 6 messages on 8/17/01. I will keep in mind the posting
limits and remember to not post more than 5 messages in 24 hours time. 

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman
Phone: (202) 801-0158
E-mail:  [email-masked]

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> 
> 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
- --
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 14:26:44 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency:  Charter and ByLaws Violations

It appears that that the DNSO GA Chair Danny Younger is making serious
allegations and taking action on his own without the full support of the
constituency he represents. 

I am not against going after those who appear to not follow the rules or
who appear to operate illegally. I am a member of the DNSO GA and I do
not believe that it is correct for the DNSO GA Chair to take this kind
of action without the full support of the DNSO GA Constituency. 

Younger taking action in formally charging the Business Constituency
with the allegations set forth in his email message without the support
of the DNSO GA Constituency was not an appropriate way to alert
interested parties and DNSO participants of his personal concerns and
beliefs. 

Younger took significant action on behalf of the DNSO GA, in his
capacity as DNSO GA Chairman, without notice to the DNSO GA Constituency
and without DNSO GA Constituency support concerning his formal action
and allegations against the Business Constituency. 

Younger did give the appearance that he represented the DNSO GA in
presenting his position to ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn. At the very least,
Younger was not clear that he was not representing the DNSO GA nor did
his message indicate that the he was flying solo. 

In my opinion, Younger being Chair has a greater responsibility at
promoting the integrity of ICANN/DNSO processes than does a member. My
being a member of the DNSO GA, Younger should not have attacked the
Business Constituency, like he did, without the support of the
constituency he represents. It appeared to me that Younger used his
position as Chair to legitimize his allegations against the Business
Constituency. Younger used language that included "our" and he directed
the communication to the DNSO GA and ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn.  The Chair
should not take formal action on his own without first notifying his
constituency in an effort to obtain consensus and information regarding
his allegations and plans to take such action. 

The DNSO GA itself appears in violation with Younger's formal action.
Most of our efforts here are related to seeing a correct process and
that process is followed. In this case, Younger did not follow the very
process he represents in being Chair of the DNSO GA. 

I cannot agree with Younger's actions in this case. In my opinion,
Younger's actions in this case jeopardize the development of the DNSO
process and his actions damage the credibility of the DNSO and ICANN.
Younger's actions in this case were not a productive approach to the
problem Younger alleges in his formal capacity as the DNSO GA Chair. 

Younger's actions in this case appear to show him to be all over the
board and unable to focus on the agenda of the DNSO GA. I believe that
Younger appears to be a loose cannon and that if he chooses to not focus
on the DNSO GA agenda or respect his position, then Younger should
consider resigning as the DNSO GA Chairman. 

Another problem that the DNSO GA faces is that its active participants
are very few in numbers. The DNSO GA appears incapable of any valid
consensus process. The few active participants appear to have captured
the DNSO GA and I believe that this has contributed to the GA's
disorganization and lack of growth. The DNSO GA has its own legitimacy
issues and Younger would do better focusing on those issues other than
setting fires.  The DNSO GA Chair should focus on the problems within
the constituency he represents first. 

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman
Phone: (202) 801-0158
E-mail:  [email-masked]

- --

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 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
- --
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 14:49:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] .Sex Domain Names available Today! 1701716 (fwd)

- --part1_140.27b4ce.28b16447_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

in my opinion, it is doubtful that Verisign could be associated with this 
since there is no mention of UDRP within the site (amongst other probable 
reasons).  They seem to have a DDRP that allows court of law intervention for 
IP interests - which is not the same as UDRP.  Therefore, I doubt Verisign is 
party to this in any way.

Ray

- --part1_140.27b4ce.28b16447_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>in my opinion, it is doubtful that Verisign could be associated with this 
<BR>since there is no mention of UDRP within the site (amongst other probable 
<BR>reasons). &nbsp;They seem to have a DDRP that allows court of law intervention for 
<BR>IP interests - which is not the same as UDRP. &nbsp;Therefore, I doubt Verisign is 
<BR>party to this in any way.
<BR>
<BR>Ray</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_140.27b4ce.28b16447_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 12:50:33 -0700
From: "Tim Langdell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .Sex Domain Names available Today! 1701716 (fwd)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C128AD.88CA5820
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think you'll find that these people used VeriSign to get their SSL =
certificate. And that is the only basis for having the VeriSign logo on =
their front page. But from reading their FAQ, it seems they are selling =
realestate on the moon: they talk about a technical solution being ready =
sometime in 2002 but give no idea what it is. The guess is that they are =
working on a plug-in solution. But it is only a guess.=20

I feel sorry for the people who have handed over so much money ($59 isnt =
it?) for what may be nothing. Certainly this outfit have no "rights" in =
this domain that anyone can determine.=20

  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: [email-masked]=20
  To: [email-masked] ; [email-masked]=20
  Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 11:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [ga] .Sex Domain Names available Today! 1701716 (fwd)

  in my opinion, it is doubtful that Verisign could be associated with =
this=20
  since there is no mention of UDRP within the site (amongst other =
probable=20
  reasons).  They seem to have a DDRP that allows court of law =
intervention for=20
  IP interests - which is not the same as UDRP.  Therefore, I doubt =
Verisign is=20
  party to this in any way.=20

  Ray=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C128AD.88CA5820
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 content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I think you'll find that these people used VeriSign =
to get=20
their SSL certificate. And that is the only basis for having the =
VeriSign logo=20
on their front page. But from reading their FAQ, it seems they are =
selling=20
realestate on the moon: they talk about a technical solution being ready =

sometime in 2002 but give no idea what it is. The guess is that they are =
working=20
on a plug-in solution. But it is only a guess. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I feel sorry for the people who have handed over so =
much money=20
($59 isnt it?) for what may be nothing. Certainly this outfit have no =
"rights"=20
in this domain that anyone can determine. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]" =
title=[email-masked]>[email-masked]</A>=20
  </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"=20
  title=[email-masked]>[email-masked]</A> ; <A =
href=3D"mailto:[email-masked]"=20
  title=[email-masked]>[email-masked]</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, August 19, 2001 =
11:49=20
  AM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ga] .Sex Domain =
Names=20
  available Today! 1701716 (fwd)</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2>in my =
opinion, it is=20
  doubtful that Verisign could be associated with this <BR>since there =
is no=20
  mention of UDRP within the site (amongst other probable <BR>reasons).=20
  &nbsp;They seem to have a DDRP that allows court of law intervention =
for=20
  <BR>IP interests - which is not the same as UDRP. &nbsp;Therefore, I =
doubt=20
  Verisign is <BR>party to this in any way. <BR><BR>Ray</FONT>=20
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C128AD.88CA5820--

- --
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 19:22:55 -0600
From: "pheather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses and Election timing.

So much for a level playing field for all candidates. Instead, those with 
the deepest pockets and the richest supporters are given advantage.

pheather

> 
> I fully expect any person seeking such assistance to organize 
their own
> financial support, and I am confident that the necessary sources of
> funds are out there. It is up to the candidate to identify the sources
> and to ask for the money. Or at least to recruit someone or some
> organization who supports that candidate's position and will do the
> fund-raising for them.
> 

- --
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 21:26:31 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Jeff, 

I agree with your idea of a "foundation". In fact, I am proposing a
similar project for the ccTLD.

I might suggest, however, that requiring a majority vote of the entire
GA to expend funds might be a bit difficult.

For example, if some ICANN board candidate needed a $ 1,500 air ticket,
can you imagine how long it might take to get this item thru the GA
list? ;-)

Seriously, though, I am proposing for the wwTLD Foundation a structure
of a 15 member board of directors and a chairman. Each geographic region
would supply 3 directors.

The foundation would open with between US $ 2.5 million and $5.0
million, which should generate a minimum of US $ 150,000 to $ 300,000
per year (with capital invested at 6%).
Each region could submit requests for funds to their regional directors,
who would then combine these requests into a disbursement plan.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 11:09 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'Rick H Wesson'; 'ga ml'; 'Joanna Lane'
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Peter and all assembly members,

  I think that funding for travel or other initiatives should come from
ICANN. However given Stuart Lynn's objection or "Not in the budget"
excuse at this time, it would seem that private funding is the only
method available at this late stage before the next ICANN meeting.  So
in essence, no I have no objection.

  As you know Peter, I would prefer the the DNSO GA and NC be self
funded. How or what method is used should be open and aboveboard,
without preference for any individual, and in the management of a
neutral party, such as a trust.  If done properly, and managed well,
reinvestment of those funds, once collected, would easily provide for
almost any funding needs that the DNSO GA and NC members needed.
However once done, these funds should be earmarked for ONLY DNSO GA and
NC initiated activities.  Those activities that require or desire the
use of these funds should also be determined by the DNSO GA members by
majority vote, before allocation or otherwise release of those funds is
forthcoming...

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> 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

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: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 22:10:52 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses and Election timing.

That is not a well thought out comment. We are only talking about a
small amount of money here, an air ticket and some hotel. Probably about
US $ 2,500.00

25 persons paying $ 100 each would cover it.

In fact, I would be happy to match your donation of $ 100 each to the
candidates who can not afford the ticket.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of pheather
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 9:23 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses and
Election timing.

So much for a level playing field for all candidates. Instead, those
with 
the deepest pockets and the richest supporters are given advantage.

pheather

> 
> I fully expect any person seeking such assistance to organize
their own
> financial support, and I am confident that the necessary sources of 
> funds are out there. It is up to the candidate to identify the sources

> and to ask for the money. Or at least to recruit someone or some 
> organization who supports that candidate's position and will do the 
> fund-raising for them.
> 

- --
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: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 22:11:48 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Yes, that makes sense!

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 11:57 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'ga ml'; 'Rick H Wesson'; 'Joanna Lane'
Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> I agree with your idea of a "foundation". In fact, I am proposing a 
> similar project for the ccTLD.

  Good!  >;)

>
>
> I might suggest, however, that requiring a majority vote of the entire

> GA to expend funds might be a bit difficult.
>
> For example, if some ICANN board candidate needed a $ 1,500 air 
> ticket, can you imagine how long it might take to get this item thru 
> the GA list? ;-)

  Well I think you misunderstood what I meant.  Maybe I should be more
precise or clear.  For instance, as a requirement, anyone requesting or
requiring funding for meetings, travel, ect. a Form should be made
available and a time limit to send in your requests for funding for
travel or whatever, even partial funding for travel, and reviewed with a
certain amount set aside for this purpose. once the requests have met
that amount, any other requests would be denied or reviewed
independently for additional funds for these or other purposes.  At this
time ONLY are ALL of the requests voted upon by the DNSO GA.  Not on an
individual basis.. Is this more clear or precise as to what I was trying
to outline?

>
>
> Seriously, though, I am proposing for the wwTLD Foundation a structure

> of a 15 member board of directors and a chairman. Each geographic 
> region would supply 3 directors.
>
> The foundation would open with between US $ 2.5 million and $5.0 
> million, which should generate a minimum of US $ 150,000 to $ 300,000 
> per year (with capital invested at 6%).

  Well you should be able to do allot better than 6%, but this is the
right idea or the idea that I was thinking about.  For instance our
fund, generates between 12.8% and as high as 34%.  So at this time few
donations or dues are needed.  However we still have a membership due
and do door knocking for donations, for special projects, ect.

>
> Each region could submit requests for funds to their regional 
> directors, who would then combine these requests into a disbursement 
> plan.

  Well yes, this in a way, what I was eluding to and briefly outlined
more precisely (See above)...  The key, is in the disbursement plan
itself. But a simple one should do well in the beginning.  Revision may
be needed later as funding and acquiring funding becomes better over
time...

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 11:09 PM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: 'Rick H Wesson'; 'ga ml'; 'Joanna Lane'
> Subject: Re: [ga] Webcast of Today's NC Meeting
>
> Peter and all assembly members,
>
>   I think that funding for travel or other initiatives should come 
> from ICANN. However given Stuart Lynn's objection or "Not in the 
> budget" excuse at this time, it would seem that private funding is the

> only method available at this late stage before the next ICANN 
> meeting.  So in essence, no I have no objection.
>
>   As you know Peter, I would prefer the the DNSO GA and NC be self 
> funded. How or what method is used should be open and aboveboard, 
> without preference for any individual, and in the management of a 
> neutral party, such as a trust.  If done properly, and managed well, 
> reinvestment of those funds, once collected, would easily provide for 
> almost any funding needs that the DNSO GA and NC members needed. 
> However once done, these funds should be earmarked for ONLY DNSO GA 
> and NC initiated activities.  Those activities that require or desire 
> the use of these funds should also be determined by the DNSO GA 
> members by majority vote, before allocation or otherwise release of 
> those funds is forthcoming...
>
> Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> 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

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 #684
************************