Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #694
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, August 23 2001          Volume 01 : Number 694

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 05:10:40 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Explicit Rulings or Vague Mandates ?

Hi Chris

I agree with both you and Joanna here.

In fact I have said publicly, several times now, that the GA is effectively
hamstrung by the power of the NC and even the DNSO Secretariat.  Of course,
it is proper that we follow the ICANN bylaws but we should be careful of
loose interpretations.

My view is that the GA has the absolute right to determine its own destiny
unless there is a clearly expressed and unequivocal rule passed as a formal
resolution by a meeting of the Names Council.  The GA cannot, and must not,
simply accept vague mandates from members of the NC generally that certain
processes must be followed.

I'd ask, therefore, can anyone indicate an explicit ruling which is (a)
clearly relevant to the point being debated and (b) duly authorised by the
Names Council?

We'd need to have the official minutes of the relevant meeting posted on the
DNSO website.  At present I can't locate the relevant ruling.  Anyone?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: watchdog <[email-masked]>
To: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

> They are making it up as they go along it appears. Whether it is a good
rule
> or not isn't even the question. It's whether or not it's even a rule.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 6:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived
>
>
> > Roberto and all assembly members,
> >
> >   I think that Joanna is correct.  I cannot find any rule for election
> that
> > requires 10 endorsements that is a voted upon rule for elections.
> > I believe that Joanna ask you to provide such proof.  You haven't
> > done so that has any official status.  Again, as Joanna points out and
> > has been pointed out time and time again the games playing here
> > in this area of procedure(s) is hampering progress unnecessarily.
> >
> > Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > > Joanna Lane wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I propose that the present system for selecting the GA chair (GA
> > > >nominations,
> > > > > 10 endorsements, approval by the NC should be kept and added to
the
> NC
> > > >rules
> > > > > of procedure.
> > > > > I have not heard any objection to this. Roberto - please give your
> view.
> > > > > Deadline August 15. ACTION all.
> > > >
> > > >Roberto. A resounding No. First, point me to the rule that says GA
> > > >nominations require 10 endorsements, thoe are NC procedures, not the
> GA's,
> > > >and the fact that they are is a figment of Philip's imagination I'm
> afraid.
> > > >Second, a Motion to change the Bylaws to allow the GA to elect its
own
> > > >Chair
> > > >was formally presented to both WG-Review and the GA under the
> Chairmanship
> > > >of Greg Burton, which the NC supported by its own policies during the
> last
> > > >Election. A formal motion was drafted (by me as it happens) seconded
> and
> > > >voted on, receiving unanimous support from all GA members, with the
> > > >possible
> > > >exception of yourself (if memory serves me correctly). With the
> greatest
> > > >respect, you cannot now chose to go completely against valid
consensus
> > > >building procedures that were undertaken within only recently during
> the
> > > >last few months simply because it is not the result you seek.
> > > >
> > > >It is this kind of games playing by the NC that is counterproductive
> and
> > > >causes increased resentment within the GA. I regret this decision has
> > > >already been made and by a far greater range and number of affected
> > > >stakeholders than the NC can possibly muster in this very limited
Task
> > > >Force. I would remind you that under the rules of cricket, when an
over
> is
> > > >over, it is over and a losing player cannot ask for a rematch simply
> > > >because
> > > >he is captain of the team.
> > >
> > > I am not sure to understand what you are talking about.
> > > I have stated officially my position on the election of the GA-Chair
in
> > > Marina del Rey last year (see
> > >
>
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111400.html#i
> ssues)
> > >
> > > If you believe I think now differently, please provide evidence.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Roberto
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 07:18:09 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MINUTES OF MEETING OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:49:59 -0500, Bruce James <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>      PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES
>
>      During the months of February and May 2001, the fees associated with
>these outside services were US$105,209.90 and US$78,650.70, respectively.
>Given the discounts ICANN receives from Jones Day in recognition of its
>non-profit character, the effective hourly rate for the legal services
>covered by these two invoices is approximately US$200, well under the rates
>ordinarily charged by lawyers with comparable experience and credentials for
>work of this type.

My mathematics works out that in February 2001 there must have then
been 525 hours spent on ICANN business, which would be least three
lawyers working full-time just on ICANN issues.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 14:44:23 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MINUTES OF MEETING OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

At 7:18 AM +1200 23/8/01, DPF wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:49:59 -0500, Bruce James <[email-masked]>
>wrote:
>
>>      PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES
>>
>>      During the months of February and May 2001, the fees associated with
>>these outside services were US$105,209.90 and US$78,650.70, respectively.
>>Given the discounts ICANN receives from Jones Day in recognition of its
>>non-profit character, the effective hourly rate for the legal services
>>covered by these two invoices is approximately US$200, well under the rates
>>ordinarily charged by lawyers with comparable experience and credentials for
>>work of this type.
>
>My mathematics works out that in February 2001 there must have then
>been 525 hours spent on ICANN business, which would be least three
>lawyers working full-time just on ICANN issues.

Can we get some sort of discount factored in regarding the registry
agreements that were originally written by Jones Day but were so bad they
needed to be re-done?

And can we assume that since we were told by Jones Day that the new
agreements were non-negotiable, any time they spent in the ensuing
negotiations was done at a zero rated fee?

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:56:18 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MINUTES OF MEETING OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Bottom line: ICANN is mostly a Jones Day cash cow. I hope
that all of the candidates for the Board of Directors take note
of this.

Bill Lovell

Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 7:18 AM +1200 23/8/01, DPF wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:49:59 -0500, Bruce James <[email-masked]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>      PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES
> >>
> >>      During the months of February and May 2001, the fees associated with
> >>these outside services were US$105,209.90 and US$78,650.70, respectively.
> >>Given the discounts ICANN receives from Jones Day in recognition of its
> >>non-profit character, the effective hourly rate for the legal services
> >>covered by these two invoices is approximately US$200, well under the rates
> >>ordinarily charged by lawyers with comparable experience and credentials for
> >>work of this type.
> >
> >My mathematics works out that in February 2001 there must have then
> >been 525 hours spent on ICANN business, which would be least three
> >lawyers working full-time just on ICANN issues.
>
> Can we get some sort of discount factored in regarding the registry
> agreements that were originally written by Jones Day but were so bad they
> needed to be re-done?
>
> And can we assume that since we were told by Jones Day that the new
> agreements were non-negotiable, any time they spent in the ensuing
> negotiations was done at a zero rated fee?
>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --

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
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:54:52 -0700
From: "Mark C . Langston" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MINUTES OF MEETING OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 12:49:59PM -0500, Bruce James wrote:

> 
>       The meeting was called to order by Dr. Cerf at 8:10 am U.S. Eastern
> Standard Time.

[...snip...]

> 
>       There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm
> U.S. Eastern Standard Time.

If this was actually a 13-hour conference call, I submit that the
conference calls are not being managed to control costs.  

If this was not actually a 13-hour conference call, I'll be amused
when the minutes are ratified unanimously at the next meeting.

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:34:24 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NAF knows it's not really arbitrating

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/

"These services are not governed by the Forum's Code of Procedure."

Why is that, I wonder?

Do they have a Code of Ethics? Betcha the UDRP services they provide fall
outside that as well.

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:38:33 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] NAF knows it's not really arbitrating

- --part1_e3.198cd3cc.28b58e69_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 8/22/2001 6:03:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/
> 
> "These services are not governed by the Forum's Code of Procedure."
> 
> Why is that, I wonder?
> 
Because the UDRP is not a NAF-created procedure.

The Forum's Code of Procedure, which can be read on the arb-forum site, 
provides a procedure for its standard arbitrations, and provides, for 
example, time periods for claims and responses, provisions for the addition 
of third-parties, etc.  As the rest of the paragraph quoted indicates, the 
NAF adjudicates the UDRP pursuant to the UDRP rules and NAF's supplemental 
rules.

- --part1_e3.198cd3cc.28b58e69_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 8/22/2001 6:03:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
<BR>[email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/
<BR>
<BR>"These services are not governed by the Forum's Code of Procedure."
<BR>
<BR>Why is that, I wonder?
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Because the UDRP is not a NAF-created procedure.
<BR>
<BR>The Forum's Code of Procedure, which can be read on the arb-forum site, 
<BR>provides a procedure for its standard arbitrations, and provides, for 
<BR>example, time periods for claims and responses, provisions for the addition 
<BR>of third-parties, etc. &nbsp;As the rest of the paragraph quoted indicates, the 
<BR>NAF adjudicates the UDRP pursuant to the UDRP rules and NAF's supplemental 
<BR>rules.
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_e3.198cd3cc.28b58e69_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: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:44:44 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NAF knows it's not really arbitrating

Andy Gardner wrote:

> http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/
>
> "These services are not governed by the Forum's Code of Procedure."
>
> Why is that, I wonder?
>
> Do they have a Code of Ethics? Betcha the UDRP services they provide fall
> outside that as well.

One would think so.  See this:

"Here you can find information about the services established
by the National Arbitration Forum for the resolution of disputes
arising out of abusive registration and use of Internet domain
names."

If the registration is presumed to be "abusive" at the outset,
what is there left to decide?  That pitch essentially says,
"Bring your complaint to us and we'll decide in your favor."

Bill Lovell

>
> --
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com

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
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:09:04 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Summary of Verisign meeting in Washington on WHOIS services

On Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 11:29:02AM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> "Sapiro, Miriam" wrote:
> 
> > -  We are organizing two additional consultations, as well as setting up a
> > web-based forum for public comment.  The web forum will be particularly
> > important to ensure that everyone who has views can provide them easily.
> 
> Why a web forum rather than a mailing list? I consider mailing lists far
> more convenient to use, they are much easier to keep a personal archive
> of, and they are the traditional discussion mechanism.

A mailing list also gives an integrity check not available to an online
forum -- the owner of a forum can change the contents at will, but since
a mailing list distributes its contents widely, it is much harder to
alter.  This is why all formal announcements should also be sent via
email, rather than only posted to a web page.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:13:55 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Meetings at Montevideo

Dear members,

We have received the following email from Raul Echeberria regarding some 
changes at Montevideo:  
I note that the GA session is slightly shorter than originally scheduled, and 
that the Names Council session is an hour and a half longer.  As the Council 
has a lot of work to accomplish, this seems to be a fair and reasonable 
change.  Perhaps there might even be time for public questions during the 
Council session (if time allows and the NC Chair consents -- I, for one, 
would appreciate the opportunity to have our elected representatives answer 
questions posed by the electorate).

Dear friends:

Due to the fact of special requirements from some of you, we have made some 
changes in the rooms' allocation for each meeting.

Below is the final assignment. Please check that the date and time of each 
meeting would be Ok and  answer me with at least one ACK.

We think that we are solved all your requirements for the meetings.

All the constituencies' rooms are equipped with screens, projectors, audio 
systems, microphones, audio recorders and Internet connectivity.

Two coffee breaks (one in the morning and one in the afternoon) are 
arranged for every day, for every meeting, so you have not to worry about it.

Sept. 6

Florida Room        - 8.00 to 18.00     - ccTLD

Sept. 7

Rembrandt Room  - 8.30 to 18.00     - gTLDs
Gauguin Room    - 8.00 to 18.00     - At Large Study Committee
Cezanne Room    - 8.00 to 18.00     - Non Commercial Constituency
Picasso Room    - 8.00 to 12.00     - IP, Business and ISPs Constituencies 
(Joint 
meeting).

Picasso 1 Room  - 13.30 to 18.00        - ISPs Constituency.
Picasso 2 Room  - 13.30 to 18.00        - IP Constituency.
Picasso 3 Room  - 13.30 to 18.00    - Business Constituency.

Renoir Room     - 8.30 to 10.00     - Orientation Workshop
Renoir Room     - 10.30 to 13.30    - Local organization.
Renoir Room     - 14.00 to 18.00    - Registrars (a confirmar)

Florida Room        - 8.00 to 18.00         - ccTLDs.

Conference Room - 8.00 to 18.00     - GAC

Sept. 8

Florida Room        - 8.00 to 12.00 - ASO
Florida Room        - 14.00 to 18.00 -LACNIC
Conference Room - 8.00 to 18.00 - GAC
Ballroom        - 8.00 to 12.00 - GA DNSO
Ballroom        - 13.30 to 18.00 - Name Council

Sept. 9

Ballroom        - 8.30 to 18.00 - ICANN Public Forum
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:25:08 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

on 8/22/01 12:57 PM, Derek Conant at [email-masked] wrote:

> Was it appropriate to solicit funding on behalf of the DNSO GA without
> formal authorization or permission from the DNSO or ICANN?

I have never professed to speak for DNSO GA and do not now, neither have I
solicited funds on behalf of the DNSO GA from anybody.

There are a lot of generalizations being bandied about in this discussion
about funding of Board candidates for Montevideo. Some of these are missing
the salient points.

What is being overlooked is that on this particular occasion, the election
of a Board Director coincides with a physical meeting of those judging the
merits of the candidates. That is an unusual situation. None of those
participating in this vote have themselves been subjected to the requirement
to meet f2f with their electorate in advance of their election or
appointment without an election, nor to the best of my knowledge, are any NC
representatives funding their own travel expenses to Montevideo, and yet
they see fit to raise it as an issue with candidates for the current
election. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It has not been the practice or the custom for nominees to participate in a
physical meeting with their electorate prior to election, for any position
as Director, member of the NC, Task Forces, GA Chair, or other elected
official of ICANN DNSO. And it wasn't an issue under discussion in this
election, until after the election itself commenced. This could be regarded
as attempts to change the rules of the election after it has started
(whether or not it is a good or bad thing). Therefore, candidates in this
election could not have been expected to think that physical attendance
would be a requirement to qualify, and in fact, it is not. Allegations now
being made that candidates should not have accepted nomination if they were
not prepared to attend, are completely unfounded. If you want to change the
rules, you may do so by consensus, but not retroactively by fiat. If you
allow any organization to impose rules and regulations in this way, there is
no end to abuse, hence the importance of concrete consensus building
procedures to arrive at fair election rules for all affected stakeholders,
something I myself have advocated very strongly since day one, and is
supported by calls for the same by the ALSC and ICANN Board, amongst others.
Attendance of Board candidates at ICANN meetings has not been formally
adopted in any rules, and is therefore outside the scope of any possible
criteria that can be set by the NC in their deliberations to judge
integrity, willingness or interest of any candidate.

Nevertheless, the NC, at the 11th hour, has in its wisdom, taken the
position that the election should not take place without giving candidates
the opportunity to meet with that part of the electorate that will be in
attendance in Montevideo, and in particular, the ccTLD constituency
representatives who have difficulty communicating with members by other
means. It could therefore be viewed that new criteria set for this election
by one constituency, the ccTLDs, supported by other constituencies, has been
introduced without proper advance notice having been given to affected
stakeholders who have endorsed candidates already, and not necessarily those
who were not planning to attend. It may or may not be that those endorsers
would have rather nominated an alternative candidate. We will never know
simply because the goal posts have moved during the election.

The notice given to candidates by the NC Teleconference was well past any
reasonable notice period that would normally be required for a person to
make themselves available. Now, what is required is to abandon prior
committments and fly half way round the world for pro bono work, and at
personal expense, since those who have called for the interview are not
willing to pay expenses.

I was aware that ICANN was a not for profit organization, but I did not
think it was a charity, and for a number of years I have personally
established a policy of charitable giving only to children in need and
regret that ICANN does not qualify. As far as pro bono work, I have given
the major portion of my time for many months to DNSO at the expense of other
pro bono and my own business work that I would normally be doing, and have
to draw the line at out of pocket expenses amounting to thousands of
dollars, whether or not I can afford it.

Also, it is not my intention to approach my supporters for funding as that
discourages those who may now be deliberating on adding their name in
support, thinking that if they do so, they will be hit for a contribution.
Endorsements of individuals without a corporate paymaster should not come
with a price tag that those with corporate funding do not have to impose.

Those organizations that do fund participants have either not replied to
inquiries made since this issue arose, or have responded negatively. It has
already been mentioned that it is too late to make such applications.
 
I sense this is a sports game, whereby, having already competed as an
unsponsored woman in a largely sponsored man's club and qualified as a
player, run round the field a few times and scored a few points, now, 5
minutes before time, the home base has been moved to a few thousand miles
away, way out of sight......
 
In any developing organization, obviously the goal posts will move, but it
is worth noting that the results of moving these specific goal posts at this
particular moment in time *does* discriminate against those that seek to
represent the non-represented, (however coincidental that may be). By
default, this situation favors those candidates with business interests that
are already well represented at all levels, including the Board, and at a
time when even the ALSC is calling for a more diverse and balanced
representation within this organization.

Is it any wonder that DNSO has begun to splinter off real talent, namely
ccTLDs and now possibly NCDNHC. It is this moving of the goal posts,
backward and forward, that has frustrated genuine participation in the
process, and prevented real improvements being made.

Too bad this election is an illusion of fair play, rather than evidence of
it. I will, nevertheless, continue to strive and speak out for higher
standards, by whatever means possible. As I said in my candidate statement,
this is a vote for conscience. You do not need me in Montevideo to meet your
own. History will be the judge of your vote.

Regards,

Joanna

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
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)

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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:42:09 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Meetings at Montevideo

Wednesday, Wednesday, August 22, 2001, 4:13:55 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear members,

> We have received the following email from Raul Echeberria regarding some 
> changes at Montevideo:  
> I note that the GA session is slightly shorter than originally scheduled, and 
> that the Names Council session is an hour and a half longer.  As the Council 
> has a lot of work to accomplish, this seems to be a fair and reasonable 
> change.  Perhaps there might even be time for public questions during the 
> Council session (if time allows and the NC Chair consents -- I, for one, 
> would appreciate the opportunity to have our elected representatives answer 
> questions posed by the electorate).

The GA is not the electorate of the Names Council, and the Names
Council are not really "our elected representatives."

- -- 
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: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:43:15 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Explicit Rulings or Vague Mandates ?

Wednesday, Wednesday, August 22, 2001, 4:25:17 PM, watchdog wrote:

> Yes, but a very valid point most seem to miss is that The Names Council
> serves the GA not the other way around. Whenever a nonprofit is to include

No, that is not true.  The Names Council has no obligation to the GA
in that regard.

Whether it should or not is a different story, but let's keep our
facts straight.

- -- 
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: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 16:59:24 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Explicit Rulings or Vague Mandates ?

Wednesday, Wednesday, August 22, 2001, 4:42:37 PM, watchdog wrote:

> It is fact. If you knew how the laws are in regards to nonprofits were then
> you would know that once it is written in the bylaws that the public or
> membership of some organization is to be included in any way that the rules
> change. That is why most nonprofits have no such clauses in their bylaws.
> ICANN does.

You misstate the law for one, and secondly the DNSO is not a
non-profit corporation anyway, at least not under US law.

This kind of thread is really not relevant or productive, however.

- -- 
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: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:10:35 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] MINUTES OF MEETING OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

on 8/22/01 3:56 PM, William S. Lovell at [email-masked] wrote:

> Bottom line: ICANN is mostly a Jones Day cash cow. I hope
> that all of the candidates for the Board of Directors take note
> of this.

Certainly, I'd scrutinize Jones Day. If they cannot account for
irregularities, I would back any campaign to remove them.

Regards,
Joanna 

> 
> Bill Lovell
> 
> Andy Gardner wrote:
> 
>> At 7:18 AM +1200 23/8/01, DPF wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 12:49:59 -0500, Bruce James <[email-masked]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES
>>>> 
>>>> During the months of February and May 2001, the fees associated with
>>>> these outside services were US$105,209.90 and US$78,650.70, respectively.
>>>> Given the discounts ICANN receives from Jones Day in recognition of its
>>>> non-profit character, the effective hourly rate for the legal services
>>>> covered by these two invoices is approximately US$200, well under the rates
>>>> ordinarily charged by lawyers with comparable experience and credentials
>>>> for
>>>> work of this type.
>>> 
>>> My mathematics works out that in February 2001 there must have then
>>> been 525 hours spent on ICANN business, which would be least three
>>> lawyers working full-time just on ICANN issues.
>> 
>> Can we get some sort of discount factored in regarding the registry
>> agreements that were originally written by Jones Day but were so bad they
>> needed to be re-done?
>> 
>> And can we assume that since we were told by Jones Day that the new
>> agreements were non-negotiable, any time they spent in the ensuing
>> negotiations was done at a zero rated fee?
>> 
>> --
>> Andrew P. Gardner
>> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
>> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
>> Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 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
> (Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> Reader, which is available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.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: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 20:21:16 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Partial response to questions from Danny Younger regarding Business Constituency: Charter and ByLaw Violations

>I do not believe that your position
>against Marilyn Cade is fair nor does the language in your comment
>appear balanced against her.

On a scale which is measured by how fair the AT&T legal department treats
people (including me ...  and my family) I am more than fair with Cade.  I
don't see why I should treat these other people any different then they
treat me.

>It does not appear fair to attack Cade for her participation in the
>ICANN processes because of her relationship with AT&T.  Cade should
>promote her position regardless of what others think about her
>connections and positions.

There is nothing wrong with promoting a position, participating, or
debating.  It is just that I have learned that I cannot believe anything
they say.  They don't participate in legitimate debate, they participate in
spin games.

>In today's aggressive global
>competitive market, these organizations strive to protect consumers'
>personal and private information.  Without these organizations'
>resources, consumers' personal and private information would certainly
>be in jeopardy and most difficult to control.

Wrong.  I have dealt with Cade and others like in the privacy arena much
more than domain issues.  In terms of privacy it is the Cade's of the world
you have to worry about most because they have all these resources.  AT&T
absolutely refuses to follow privacy laws (as well as the guidelines they
claim to support).  They refuse to follow the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, they placed false information in their web site privacy policy, and
they had to pay off TRUSTe in order to get the AT&T logo on the TRUSTe site
even though AT&T refuses to follow their (very weak) guidelines.  And did
you know that AT&T made an agreement with the Direct Marketing association
in the early 1990's where AT&T agreed not to make any cold-call
telemarketing call to any unlisted telephone number in the USA?  HA!  While
these are not major privacy issues they are measurable and I believe are the
tip of the iceberg.

>We figure out what
>to do from their proposals.  We choose to agree, disagree, or modify
>their proposals.  Let them do the work.  Let's stop being paranoid and
>move this process forward.

So they control the issues, the forum, who attends meeting, who has input,
etc?  then if you can figure out what their real game is in time you might
be able to do something about it?  Great plan!  of course, without them it
may not get done at all.

>If you want to worry about things, worry about a break-down in these
>enterprise organizations' positions or a break-down in their ability to
>protect consumers' personal and private information.  Worry about a
>foreign group or competitor outside U.S. control obtaining consumers'
>personal and private information and using it.

This is propaganda.  I have a good idea what "U.S. control" means.  It means
that the FTC goes to a major credit bureau and says "what you are doing is
violating the Fair Credit reporting Act because you are combining credit
header data with marketing data."  The credit bureau says back "Go ahead,
sue us.  By the time it drags through the courts we will have made many
times the legal fees and fines."  And yes, and AT&T rep. on Cade's (and/or
Cade herself) team attended these meetings ... smiling all the way and
making excuses much like what you are doing now. it is the AT&T's with their
power, and their excuse makers who go along with them, that scare me.

Russ Smith

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #694
************************