Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #702
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, August 26 2001           Volume 01 : Number 702

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:38:33 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Funding the DNSO

Dear Vany,

One solution regarding long-term funding for the DNSO that has already been 
put forth is incorporated in the appendices of the .pro contract (reprinted 
below):
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/pro/registry-agmt-appg-11mar01.htm

This approach may potentially be incorporated in other upcoming registry 
contracts.
- ------------------------------

4. Community Refund

For each fiscal twelve-month period (the "Community Refund Period") beginning 
in the term after RegistryPro has fully repaid its investors and declared and 
issued dividend payments to its shareholders, RegistryPro shall issue a 
"Community Refund," as described below. RegistryPro shall be deemed to have 
declared and issued a dividend payment to the extent retained earnings of the 
Company exceed three times its total investment.

The total "Community Refund" will be calculated as follows:

During each Community Refund Period, RegistryPro will calculate the 
percentage of all new .pro domain name registrations associated with Registry 
Services that were sponsored by a shareholder of RegistryPro, which also 
operates as an ICANN-Accredited Registrar as defined in the Registry 
Agreement. Such percentage will be multiplied by RegistryPro's net income 
derived from the Registry Services during such Community Refund Period to 
arrive at the Community Refund.

Example: If the total number of new domain name registrations in a community 
refund period were 300,000 and 50,000 had been registered by the shareholders 
of RegistryPro, 16.667% (50,000/350,000) of the net income (after interest, 
taxes, depreciation, amortization and dividend) derived from Registry 
Services would be available to be paid as a community refund.

The calculation of the Community Refund will be approved by the RegistryPro 
Board of Directors no later 120 calendar days after the audit for such 
accounts has been completed for such Community Refund Period. The refund will 
be distributed no later than 90 calendar days following approval by the Board 
of Directors, unless an extension is needed to review proposals from groups 
requesting such funds.

The RegistryPro Board of Directors shall review the proposals and shall 
determine the recipients and amounts of distributions from the refund. The 
distributions shall be made for the promotion of the management and 
deployment of the Internet in the public interest and may include:

Support of the DNSO. 
Support for additional arbitration mechanisms. 
Consumer-focused domain name education programs. 
Support for ICANN policies. 
Bridging the Digital Divide. 

Each year beginning after the completion of the initial Community Refund 
Period, RegistryPro will report, according to Appendix U, on the 
distributions made from the Community Refund.

- --
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, 25 Aug 2001 09:46:49 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:15:24PM -0400, Derek Conant wrote:
> They may be "> > worthless quotes" to you, however, I believe that it is
> good practice to have an accurate record regarding the text one is
> responding to.

If we all followed your prescription, then each email message would
repeat the entire thread it was part of.  That is a singularly silly
result, not worthy of a man of your intellect.  In practice, it is
absolutely necessary to edit away repetitive material.  Bear in mind 
that everyone on the list has seen the material before, and moreover, 
the list is archived, and anyone who is confused can refer to the 
archive. 

Years of experience have lead to a few simple rules of email ettiquette,
and one of the most important is to trim away unnecessary repetitive
text, leaving only the amount necessary to identify the context, as I 
have done here.

[...]

> Give us a break.

*You* give us a break.  You may think you are doing us a favor by
quoting 12 layers deep, but it is the same kind of favor that a
flatulent person bestows on a crowded room.

> Are you trying to confuse people here, or what?  If
> you don't like quoted text, then simply ignore the quoted text.  

Actually, Derek, if you can't abide by simple rules of ettiquette you
will find that your messages will be ignored in total.  Experience shows
that short meaningful comments are far more effective.  People tend to
resent having their time and bandwidth wasted with unnecessarily
redundant text. 

- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 17:56:00 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] french candidate Eric Jonvel  - ICANN meeting inMontevideo

On 03:49 25/08/01, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales said:
> > And I do not undestand that candidates and NC members
> > must purchase the right to share in decisions.
>
>I didn't understand this statement.

Dear Vany,
When you say that you paid your trip to Stockholm you say:
- - I was to be in Stockholm to participate in NC decisions
- - I was obliged to purchase the ticket by myself

So you purchased the possibility to participate in the NC decisions in 
Stockholm.

> > I find this unfair, dishonnest, and most of all totally inneficient ...
>
>Unfair?  ICANN is fair by treating equally all candidates (no one is being
>funding by ICANN).

I talk about the ICANN system. This system is unfair because all through 
the world many people cannot participate wand may have far better reasons 
than yours and mine.

>Dishonest?  ICANN has being honest in not show any favoritism for any 
>candidate
>in any means.

Dishonnest because this is a "one dollar one vote" system and not a "one 
man one vote" system.

>Totally inneficient?  Where is the ineficiency?  In this subject there's no
>eficiency to measure since the eficiency of ICANN is not measured in the terms
>you want to measure it.

The entire world may measure the efficiency of the system.

>Jefsey...stop complain and share with all DNSO factible solutions.  If you 
>don't
>have proposals of solutions, then, there is no point to follow discussing this
>issue.

I think I have enough propositions on the table! What I would like to see 
is some pramatic responses and some work ahead. This is not because we do 
things wrong that we have to continue being wrong and to build on top.

We have first to understand what we do, good or bad.
The first question is: "is the ICANN a business by a corporation or is the 
ICANN a common good oriented effort".

Please respond.

If it is a business it must carry by business rules and accept competition. .
If its a common good effort it must start first in having Members and being 
accountable to them.

Without that basic clarification, you may spend a lof of time and efforts 
you will go nowhere. As we presently do.

Cheers.
Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:22:26 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

>Actually, Derek, if you can't abide by simple rules of ettiquette you
>will find that your messages will be ignored in total.

This message gives terrific insight to some of the people involved with
ICANN.  There must be total control and you must play by their rules (which
they make up) and seek to impose on the rest of the world.  Anyone who
deviates from their narrow scope and their made-up rules of the world gets
ignored.

In addition, some people live and die by what is posted on mailing lists and
their life would probably be over if the lists were ever to cease operation.
These people often have no idea what is going on in the real world and seem
to be sitting on large wooden sticks.

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:45:37 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

I fear that I am part of the folks who don't trim away enough.  :-) 

But that doesn't mean that I can't benefit from the experience of others to
improve my own behavior.

I had a conversation recently with an industry colleague in a developing
country where he/she responded to my simple forward with a lot of
unnecessary attachments [from their point of view] with a request: Please
cut off any unnecessary text in your communications.  Online communications
costs are much greater in [my] country than in yours. 

So, I found this exchange in the GA both enlightening and interesting.  I
think Kent is right about the  "online etiquette" issue, but some of us may
still be thinking that context requires forwarding of the full string. And,
since perhaps there are new folks on any communications, it might appear to
be so. 

But, since many will find the transmittal of the full string burdensome, I
suspect we have a compromise somewhere in the middle on this issue.

I am part of, as are most of my fellow GA subscribers, other groups.  I note
that some other groups I am a subscriber to, in other countries, also make
the request of "cutting off the string".

So, while not endorsing either view, NOR SEEKING TO CREATE A NEW WORKING
GROUP ON COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOLS, I wonder if we could benefit from just
individually thinking of how we like to be communicated with, and try to
achieve a process which doesn't burden others, but gets the points across
which the "speaker"  wants to make.

MC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 12:47 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 12:15:24PM -0400, Derek Conant wrote:
> They may be "> > worthless quotes" to you, however, I believe that it is
> good practice to have an accurate record regarding the text one is
> responding to.

If we all followed your prescription, then each email message would
repeat the entire thread it was part of.  That is a singularly silly
result, not worthy of a man of your intellect.  In practice, it is
absolutely necessary to edit away repetitive material.  Bear in mind 
that everyone on the list has seen the material before, and moreover, 
the list is archived, and anyone who is confused can refer to the 
archive. 

Years of experience have lead to a few simple rules of email ettiquette,
and one of the most important is to trim away unnecessary repetitive
text, leaving only the amount necessary to identify the context, as I 
have done here.

[...]

> Give us a break.

*You* give us a break.  You may think you are doing us a favor by
quoting 12 layers deep, but it is the same kind of favor that a
flatulent person bestows on a crowded room.

> Are you trying to confuse people here, or what?  If
> you don't like quoted text, then simply ignore the quoted text.  

Actually, Derek, if you can't abide by simple rules of ettiquette you
will find that your messages will be ignored in total.  Experience shows
that short meaningful comments are far more effective.  People tend to
resent having their time and bandwidth wasted with unnecessarily
redundant text. 

- -- 
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
- --
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, 25 Aug 2001 20:20:48 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] PROPOSED CROSS CANDIDATE PLATFORM 

On 12:07 25/08/01, William S. Lovell said:
>I'm afraid that what we are seeing here is "good old American politics."

Dear Bill,
My point was targeted to the whole ICANN decision taking system. Your post 
is quite interesting: I would fully support you should I be a Yankee. But I 
am not.

We faced that problems in France and addressed them.  Elections and public 
mandates are state business. So State pays for them: funding is mostly by 
the State, expenses are controlled, wealth increases during a mandate are 
to be reported/will be scrutinized, no business funding. I do not claim it 
is perfect and there are no bypasses. I say there is a clear system 
according to a voted policy.

Questions are simple:
- - is the ICANN an US or an International venture?.
- - is the ICANN a business or a common interest endeavor?
- - is "one dollar one vote" better for the ICANN that "one 
concern/competence/interest one vote"?

I do not want to argue or campaign on this. I want us to consider the 
problem. I therefore propose the following cross-candidate position - 
Joana, Amadeu, Paul and Eric are more than welcome to support it if they want:

"every proposition made and every decision taken at the ICANN should include:
- - a part telling how this proposition or this decision fights the lingual, 
digital and financial divides.
- - a part telling concisely how participants have covered its costs 
(secretariat, time, travel, telephone, etc...): family money, Xxx Inc. 
professional duty, Zzz Gov representation, foundation.
"
Is there anything there anyone can object? I would be glad to know.

Jefsey

>What happens in American politics is that "warchests" are put together,
>by which is meant piles of money from the backers of the candidate.
>And who are those backers?  Other citizens who happen to have
>money, have some sympathy with the aims of the candidate, perhaps,
>but often want the candidate to do something for them if elected.  This
>latter kind of problem is not likely to arise in an ICANN context --
>what power to do anything to aid an individual backer would a
>winning candidate ever have? -- but the rest remains.
>
>By that "rest" I mean that the less wealthy candidates are coming
>into a role in which they must "campaign" not just for votes, but
>for financial backing. That may seem unfortunate, but not to do so
>is to leave the field to the rich, as it is said that Rockefeller "bought"
>his elections out of his own pocket, Ross Perot certainly tried to,
>and JFK, of course, "bought Richard Daley and Cook County
>to gain the Presidency."  There must be developed enough of an
>interest in these elections, and enough commitment to the goals
>of some particular candidate, to ensure that such candidate will
>be able, not in this case to buy "air time" on the tube, or ads in
>the newspapers, but at least (at this stage of the development
>of ICANN) to show up at various international meetings.
>
>The candidate that has the "platform" that will best serve the bulk
>of Internet users,  "Individuals," "Registrants," "Domain Name
>Holders," and the like, and has made those principles and goals
>clear, should be acknowledged and recognized for such efforts
>by General Assembly members through the development of private
>"warchests" that would support the "candidate of their choice."
>It is enough of a sacrifice of a candidate to put in the many hours,
>over months and indeed years, that it takes to encompass the issues
>that ICANN faces, develop sound policies to address those issues,
>and then articulate those policies in these pages, while at the same
>time trying to keep body and soul together.  If the members of the
>General Assembly are not willing to back that kind of effort at
>least to the extent that a candidate can have an even playing field
>(just to be able to "show up" at a meeting, for heaven's sake!), well,
>the old saw is that "people get the kind of government they deserve" --
>the rich will continue to reign.
>
>In principle, Joanna is quite correct in what she says below.
>However, it seems evident to me that ICANN is not going
>to loose a dime for less wealthy candidates, so it is again the
>job of the GA membership to make itself known.  These are
>indeed  a good cross-section of the stakeholders to whom
>Joanna refers, and for whom she is fighting, and I now feel
>that "the ball is in their court."
>
>The dominant feature of ICANN, from its formation, has been
>its control by the rich and powerful, and what we have got out
>of that is such things as the UDRP for the trademark lobby,
>Registries and Registrars were necessarily given SOs but
>nobody ever heard of the Registrants (who, being the "public,"
>are really those for the benefit of whom the Internet is supposed
>to be run), and the whole rest of that sad litany.  If the members
>of the General Assembly really want to change that, they will
>have to do it in the old fashioned way: select a candidate that
>will represent your interests well, and then back that candidate
>to the hilt -- both with your vote and with your check book.
>This is the real world here, the seat of power is the Board
>of Directors of ICANN, and over time it must be filled with
>people such as Joanna (and Karl Auerbach) who have been
>captured by no one, are not corporate puppets, and truly
>have the interests of the stakeholders at heart. There must
>be the same kind of "power play" that gained advantage to
>others who were willing to join together to make that effort.
>
>(It should be added, of course, that "puppets" can be found
>throughout the ICANN structure, so what is said above does
>not just apply to Board of Directors elections.)
>
>Bill Lovell
>
>Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > on 8/24/01 9:49 PM, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales at [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > > ICANN has being honest in not show any favoritism for any
> > > candidate in any means.
> >
> > Honesty is not the issue. Participation by all affected stakeholders in the
> > process is the issue. Without wishing to put words into Jefsey's mouth, I
> > think he is saying that ICANN discriminates against those with few material
> > gains. By upholding a policy that insists every participant is responsible
> > for their own funding, which policy favors the wealthy and those who are
> > subsidised by corporate funding, ICANN is not offering equal opportunities
> > for all affected stakeholders. The evidence is there for all to see.
> >
> > The bottom line is that, under the current structure, if a person seeks to
> > participate fully, including at top level, they have to "pay to play", and
> > for some affected groups, that is simply not possible (witness the NCDNHC
> > difficulties). Assuming that most of the public are not wealthy, ICANN 
> has a
> > duty to develop a policy, and the practical means to implement such a
> > policy, that does not discriminate against any financially disadvantaged
> > group. The Bylaws, under which ICANN operates, are there to protect the
> > public benefit, and ignoring the issue of unequal wealth in this world
> > doesn't make the problem go away.
> >
> > 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
>
>--
>
>
>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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 20:50:23 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

On 18:10 25/08/01, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales said:
>Hi Leah, Jefsey and Joana:

Hi: Vany,

>I really would like to see DNSO funded by other means instead from
>constituencies.
>
>All constituencies funds DNSO activities including GA activities.  I would
>like that unability to pay doesn't be an obstacle for the constiuencies to
>vote through NC members. In fact ths is not democracy.  Even in my
>coutnry, people with debts have the right to vote.

In ICANN country people with debts lose their [domain] name.

>But comming back again to the candiates for Board Directors.

I wish to remind you that I started discussing the ICANN money
management. The candidacies are just an example. But let go.

>Extrapolating it to our politic system, political parties, independent
>candidates, etc, are not funded by the government.  All political prties
>and even the independent candiates (by the way, in my country you cannot
>be an independent candidate, in other it is permissible) begins from the
>next day of elections to prepare themselves for the next election 5 years
>later, by means of fundraising amongst members, activities, alliances,
>etc.

If France this system led - as in other countries - to such abuses that
several Ministries, political leaders and mayors went in jail. As well as
top corportation managers. You may recall Alcatel, Elf. ... And believe
me the practices were not worst than in the US. This means that the
system Bill and you propose would lead me directly to jail.

You may also remember the $ 50.000 for the TLDs. I have covered the
question with two top legal firm. Should I have paid them - you have to
find the money - I was possibly investigated and sen to jail.

The rationale is simple. Someone gives you some money. OK. What is
his interest. If his interest is legitimate has has no problem is publishing
it. If it is not this is bribery. Period.

>However, GA is not a political party, NC is not a political party, ICANN
>Board members are not political parties.  We are a whole DNSO and not only
>the NC has the duty to search solutions.  All members of DNSO has the duty
>to work on solutions, including every member of the GA.

True. The first thing is to accept there is a problem.
Then to decide we want to solve it.

Then we can work on it: analysis, debate, propositions, etc...
A way to test Bill and Joana's BP

>I am not agree with the philosophy of "pay to play".  However, the
>conditions was like this since ICANN creation.  It is not now that we are
>facing the same problem.

This is not because we always did something wrong ....

<snip>
>I propose that instead of following discussing how unfair or not is the
>system right now...begin to discuss all posible solutions...

Let consider that everyone accepts the ICANN economy is to be
reviewed (what I doubt, many staill have to be convinced, the "pay
to give" being part of their culture), you cannot unfortunately jump
at quick solutions.

What you want to review is the ICANN business plan. This includes
necessarily its mission, its organization, its products, its management.

So you must start with basics:
- - is this a corporation with its own survival and development goals
- - is this a common interest endeavor with the community goals.

Then:
- - either what is its market
- - or who are its community members

etc...

I have no objection to any of the approach. I only object that you
cannot have *both* as today.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:49:31 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?

Saturday, Saturday, August 25, 2001, 6:50:24 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> reason why Danny cannot simply order that they be implemented.  If Swensson
> can unilaterally suspend me from the list based upon rules not voted upon

The list rules were voted on.

- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:05:53 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?

Saturday, Saturday, August 25, 2001, 12:49:31 PM, William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, August 25, 2001, 6:50:24 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

>> reason why Danny cannot simply order that they be implemented.  If Swensson
>> can unilaterally suspend me from the list based upon rules not voted upon

> The list rules were voted on.

Since you can't seem to do your own research before jumping to
conclusion, let me point out the relevant vote for you:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-roo-vote.html

- -- 
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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:26:37 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] PROPOSED CROSS CANDIDATE PLATFORM

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 12:07 25/08/01, William S. Lovell said:
> >I'm afraid that what we are seeing here is "good old American politics."
>
> Dear Bill,
> My point was targeted to the whole ICANN decision taking system. Your post
> is quite interesting: I would fully support you should I be a Yankee. But I
> am not.
>
> We faced that problems in France and addressed them.  Elections and public
> mandates are state business. So State pays for them: funding is mostly by
> the State, expenses are controlled, wealth increases during a mandate are
> to be reported/will be scrutinized, no business funding. I do not claim it
> is perfect and there are no bypasses. I say there is a clear system
> according to a voted policy.
>
> Questions are simple:
> - is the ICANN an US or an International venture?.
> - is the ICANN a business or a common interest endeavor?

I say that ICANN is an international, common interest
endeavor for the public good. The fact that it is being run
as a business accounts for its abuses of its clientele  (I
refuse to use the term "customer' in this context, since
that only exacerbates the problem. I've said before, and
repeat now, that no one in ICANN knows how to run
a non-profit, public interest entity.)

(The U. S. Patent and Trademark Office has adopted a
"business model," and if anyone is interested I'll fill them
in on how the quality of the service has plummeted.)

> - is "one dollar one vote" better for the ICANN that "one
> concern/competence/interest one vote"?

No. It is not a matter of having to pay to vote; it is a matter of
providing support money (no strings attached) the the candidate
of your choice: you get to vote whether you donate money or
not, but if you do donate, at least the candidate you want will
have ore of a fighting chance to win.

> I do not want to argue or campaign on this. I want us to consider the
> problem. I therefore propose the following cross-candidate position -
> Joana, Amadeu, Paul and Eric are more than welcome to support it if they want:
>
> "every proposition made and every decision taken at the ICANN should include:
> - a part telling how this proposition or this decision fights the lingual,
> digital and financial divides.
> - a part telling concisely how participants have covered its costs
> (secretariat, time, travel, telephone, etc...): family money, Xxx Inc.
> professional duty, Zzz Gov representation, foundation.
> "
> Is there anything there anyone can object? I would be glad to know.

These are excellent suggestions -- the U. S. Congress now includes "fiscal
impact" statements in its legislation, as do a lot of states.  However, this is
too ambitious for ICANN or the GA right now, methinks.  In the past it's been
hard enough to get any kind of full explanation of the reasons for this or that
kind of proposal or whatever (Best Practices is designed, through its insistence
on having a Basis before a Proposal can be recognized), and to try at this
stage to add what you lay out would probably be too much adaptation at once.

Bill

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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:34:17 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Best Practices Voting

Thanks to the able research of William X. Walsh, I've
now been able to add a URL to my sig file that has
links to the existing rules for voting, both as to the GA
mailing lists and votes for the whole DNSO. (We do
"one-stop shopping" here: everything you need to
know to cast your vote.  :-)
(Well, almost.  And are you registered to vote?
Did you know that we've gone from 305 voters
earlier this year to over 500? Keep it up, folks!)

Bill Lovell

- --

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.)
General voting rules for both the GA mailing lists and
the DNSO:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-roo-vote.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, 25 Aug 2001 16:59:34 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

Sometimes it is important to have more quoted text due to context 
surrounding the issue.   However, I've noticed that some messages 
are as much as 20k, which is too much.  

Personally, I prefer to have enough of the context quoted in the 
message to allow a complete understanding, but there is no need 
to quote an entire thread when it gets to three or four hundred lines.

OTOH, a 15k or 20k file does not take long to download even on a 
dialup account.  I still use dialup when DSL is acting flakey and 
have had no problems with 20k files.  I think those who would be 
most bothered are in areas where they are charged by data traffic 
as opposed to time.  It is for those people I think we must observe 
mail list eitquette more than thoes who just don't care for longer 
messages.  Anything over 10k is a bit much.

My 2 cents once more.
Leah

On 25 Aug 2001, at 12:15, Derek Conant wrote:

> They may be "> > worthless quotes" to you, however, I believe that it
> is good practice to have an accurate record regarding the text one is
> responding to.  This is why email messages I am responding to and its
> text are quoted in my email comments.
> 
> It is also difficult to understand email comments from others if the
> email message and text being addressed is not quoted. 
> 
> Give us a break.  Are you trying to confuse people here, or what?  If
> you don't like quoted text, then simply ignore the quoted text.  
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> Telephone:  (202) 801-0158
> Facsimile:  (202) 234-0685
> E-mail:  [email-masked]
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 06:31:56PM -0400, Derek Conant wrote:
> > > Now respectfully, you should know better than to waste your time
> > > supporting a position that will never be actualized.
> > 
> > Derek, I wonder if you would mind editing out the useless volumes of
> > quoted text from your email messages.  There is absolutely no reason
> > to subject us to receiving the same stuff 3 or 4 times over...
> > 
> > [300 lines of worthless quotes removed]
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> --
> 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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:50:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ICANN meeting in Montevideo

On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> I wish to remind you that I started discussing the ICANN money
> management. The candidacies are just an example. But let go.

My apologizes.  I always though that you was talking about only the issue
of unability of candidates to travel to the ICANN meeting in Uruguay
because economical constraints and how unfair is that some can travel and
some cannot travel, and about who funds such travels.  Clarifyed that is
not ICANN neither DNSO who funds actual candidates that either are NC
members or ICANN Board members actually, then we have understood that
for
candidatures activities no money should come from ICANN neither DNSO in
order to assure that ICANN treats of all them equally.

> True. The first thing is to accept there is a problem.
> Then to decide we want to solve it.
State what is the problem.

> >I am not agree with the philosophy of "pay to play".  However, the
> >conditions was like this since ICANN creation.  It is not now that we are
> >facing the same problem.
>
> This is not because we always did something wrong ....
I just want to clarify this statement:  "Pay to play" doesn't have to be
related with the right to vote.  Since 1999 the issue of "pay to play"
that I refer is the ability to attend meetings, even teleconferences.
And I want to clarify that ICANN has never taken away to anyone the right
ot vote only because cannot attend a meeting.
The particular issue of DNSO where now the right to vote is attached to
dues from a budget aprooved by the NC by majority are another issue.
ICANN hasn't said any word about it yet.  I consider that is outside the
scope of the NC to take away voting rights of constituencies (By Laws
in my understanding doesn give such power to the NC).  But the
last word on this issue ICANN has it.  Until then, clock is ticking
for every constituency.

>
> <snip>
> >I propose that instead of following discussing how unfair or not is the
> >system right now...begin to discuss all posible solutions...
>
> Let consider that everyone accepts the ICANN economy is to be
> reviewed (what I doubt, many staill have to be convinced, the "pay
> to give" being part of their culture), you cannot unfortunately jump
> at quick solutions.
>
> What you want to review is the ICANN business plan. This includes
> necessarily its mission, its organization, its products, its management.
If what you want to achieve is that DNSO, ASO and PSO be included in the
ICANN Budget first you have to change the By-Laws.

> So you must start with basics:
> - is this a corporation with its own survival and development goals
> - is this a common interest endeavor with the community goals.
In the By-Laws all of this are stated

> Then:
> - either what is its market
> - or who are its community members
By-Laws says it.

Best Regards
Vany

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #702
************************