Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #709
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, August 28 2001           Volume 01 : Number 709

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:15:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Letter from Louis Touton to Christine A. Russo (VeriSign)

In a new announcement, "ICANN Montevideo Meeting Topic: Registration Transfer 
Rules",  our General Counsel, Louis Touton, offers his view on existing 
policies regarding transfers:
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-to-russo-27aug01.htm

One notable excerpt:  "The allocation of responsibility does indicate, 
however, that the losing registrar may not deny a transfer request that the 
gaining registrar has verified merely because the losing registrar has not 
verified it. Thus, a losing registrar should not deny a transfer request 
simply because it has notified the Registered Name Holder of the request and 
has not received a response."

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:19:44 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

At 5:54 PM -0700 27/8/01, Mike Roberts wrote:

>There are those who prefer that ICANN defer to the PSO in technical
>areas,

From ICANN's main web page:

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a
technical coordination body for the Internet."

If ICANN is deferring to the PSO in technical areas, what exactly does the
rest of ICANN do?

- -- 
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

Mike,

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Mike Roberts wrote:

> Rick -
>
> This issue has been debated at length by the Board and executive
> staff.  The original CTO job was created by Jon for himself.   If he
> had lived, the relationship between the reservoir of technical smarts
> inside ICANN versus that resident in the PSO and its constituent
> organizations would have been quite different.

I understand and wish things had turned out different.

> I think the Board and Stuart Lynn have an open mind about the future.
> There are those who prefer that ICANN defer to the PSO in technical
> areas, and there are others who feel that it should have a senior
> person.  At the present time, there is an opening for a senior
> systems manager that is under recruitment.  In another organization,
> it might be called CTO.  In ICANN, given the past, no one wants to
> seem to be putting on airs.

due to the numerous technical issues registrars, registries, and
registrants are faced with, it is the DNSO Registrars hope that ICANN will
endeavor to find an appropriate CTO and one that won't be assigned
"Systems Manager" duties.

We will never find another Postel, however we still need the position
budgeted for and the vacancy filed.

best regards,

- -rick

> - Mike
>
>
>
> At 17:21 -0700 8/27/01, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> >Mike,
> >
> >upon review of the FY2001-2002 budget I note that there is no provision
> >for a CTO. For a organization created for technical administration I am
> >troubled that there are provision for more legal staff such as a
> >Associate General Counsel or Policy Analysist but no current provision for
> >a CTO.
> >
> >I understand that the CTO position was reserved for Jon; however, not
> >staffing such an important role for a Technical body make it hard to
> >believe that ICANN is designed for anything but Technical Administration.
> >
> >could you comment why a CTO wasn't placed while you were president?
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >-rick
> >
> >Rick H Wesson
> >CTO Registrars Constituency
> >CEO Alice's Registry - An ICANN Accredited Registrar
>
> --
> --
> 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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:44:58 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter from Louis Touton to Christine A. Russo (VeriSign)

Monday, Monday, August 27, 2001, 6:15:43 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> In a new announcement, "ICANN Montevideo Meeting Topic: Registration Transfer 
> Rules",  our General Counsel, Louis Touton, offers his view on existing 
> policies regarding transfers:
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-to-russo-27aug01.htm

> One notable excerpt:  "The allocation of responsibility does indicate, 
> however, that the losing registrar may not deny a transfer request that the 
> gaining registrar has verified merely because the losing registrar has not 
> verified it. Thus, a losing registrar should not deny a transfer request 
> simply because it has notified the Registered Name Holder of the request and 
> has not received a response."

Looks like Louis got one right for once.

- -- 
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 18:54:39 -0700
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

At 20:19 -0500 8/27/01, Andy Gardner wrote:
>At 5:54 PM -0700 27/8/01, Mike Roberts wrote:
>
>>There are those who prefer that ICANN defer to the PSO in technical
>>areas,
>
>>From ICANN's main web page:
>
>"The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a
>technical coordination body for the Internet."
>
>If ICANN is deferring to the PSO in technical areas, what exactly does the
>rest of ICANN do?

Andy -

Well, in theory, according to the White Paper and the Bylaws, the 
Board is supposed to make decisions on the basis of bottom up 
processes.  The quote below from Article VI says, " the Board shall 
accept the recommendations of a Supporting Organization....".   I 
don't know if that matches your understanding of "defer to" but it's 
at least in the ballpark.

- - Mike

"(e) Subject to the provisions of Article III, Section 3, the Board 
shall accept the recommendations of a Supporting Organization if the 
Board finds that the recommended policy (1) furthers the purposes of, 
and is in the best interest of, the Corporation; (2) is consistent 
with the Articles and Bylaws; (3) was arrived at through fair and 
open processes (including participation by representatives of other 
Supporting Organizations if requested); and (4) is not reasonably 
opposed by any other Supporting Organization. "
- -- 
- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

Could someone please point me to the URL that memorializes this debate?
And the part where input from the community was solicited and received? I
missed it, but I don't follow every forum.  I know there was one, because
ICANN is open and transparent and bottom-up, and this is obviously an
issue that others besides the Board might wish to comment on, and I'd hate
to miss the next round of the discussion.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> 
> Mike,
> 
> 
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Mike Roberts wrote:
> 
> > Rick -
> >
> > This issue has been debated at length by the Board and executive
> > staff.  The original CTO job was created by Jon for himself.   If he
> > had lived, the relationship between the reservoir of technical smarts
> > inside ICANN versus that resident in the PSO and its constituent
> > organizations would have been quite different.
> 
> I understand and wish things had turned out different.
> 
> > I think the Board and Stuart Lynn have an open mind about the future.
> > There are those who prefer that ICANN defer to the PSO in technical
> > areas, and there are others who feel that it should have a senior
> > person.  At the present time, there is an opening for a senior
> > systems manager that is under recruitment.  In another organization,
> > it might be called CTO.  In ICANN, given the past, no one wants to
> > seem to be putting on airs.
> 
> 
> due to the numerous technical issues registrars, registries, and
> registrants are faced with, it is the DNSO Registrars hope that ICANN will
> endeavor to find an appropriate CTO and one that won't be assigned
> "Systems Manager" duties.
> 
> We will never find another Postel, however we still need the position
> budgeted for and the vacancy filed.
> 
> best regards,
> 
> -rick
> 
> 
> > - Mike
> >
> >
> >
> > At 17:21 -0700 8/27/01, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> > >Mike,
> > >
> > >upon review of the FY2001-2002 budget I note that there is no provision
> > >for a CTO. For a organization created for technical administration I am
> > >troubled that there are provision for more legal staff such as a
> > >Associate General Counsel or Policy Analysist but no current provision for
> > >a CTO.
> > >
> > >I understand that the CTO position was reserved for Jon; however, not
> > >staffing such an important role for a Technical body make it hard to
> > >believe that ICANN is designed for anything but Technical Administration.
> > >
> > >could you comment why a CTO wasn't placed while you were president?
> > >
> > >thanks,
> > >
> > >-rick
> > >
> > >Rick H Wesson
> > >CTO Registrars Constituency
> > >CEO Alice's Registry - An ICANN Accredited Registrar
> >
> > --
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                 -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:01:42 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Towards Improved Representation in ICANN

Dear Mike,

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your paper submitted to the ALSC, "Towards 
Improved Representation in ICANN", 
http://www.atlargestudy.org/roberts_paper.html 
and share your desire to see a newly created At Large Supporting Organization 
for individual users of domain names and addresses.

If I may put forward a question... in your only comment regarding the General 
Assembly, you wrote:  "The DNSO also has a General Assembly composed of 
individuals whose relationship to the seven constituency groups and to the 
Names Council has been and continues to be controversial."

What role do you see for the General Assembly in your six-SO model?

Best regards,
Danny Younger
 
- --
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:18:08 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Study of Over 11,000 .INFO Sunrise Registrations

I have been informed that Domebase.com has just published a study examining 
trademark violations in the .info Sunrise registrations.  The URL:  
http://www.domebase.com/study.htm

- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:07:06 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding

Dear Mike,
you respond on budget, i.e. expenses. Here we are interested in economy. 
The revenues, where they come from, why, decided upon which long term 
stability considerations? The consequence on the type of expenses and on 
the mission creep. A general audit is necessary before stabilizing operations.

For example, is it acceptable that a leading international industry rely on 
donations: in most of the cultures this is understood as organized bribery. 
The image of the whole thing obviously suffers from this and the economy is 
hesitant about relying on "sponsoring" as everyone knows that it descreases 
in time/

Costs, prices, revenues, trends are to be analyzed and understood. ICANN is 
to foster competition but competition to itself.

No acrimony meant. Help intended. No one can be its own control as Staff 
has to do; no one can both run the short term and spend his time 
considering the long term.

I studied carefully your "Roberts_paper". It obviously carries many good 
points. But I am surprised as you ballance between all-ICANN and 
less-ICANN, without investigating other-ICANN. As if the current 
[out-dated] founding concepts where fully appropriate. You know that 
everyone at Staff, BoD and SOs wants to do his best and you trimed the 
bylaws enough: this should show you that problem is deeper and that a new 
bylaws chance is not enough.

IMHO the target is now to use thinking and experience - and you have plenty 
- - to find the ICANN's real equilbrium principles in the real world of 
today. Economy is part of it, as are administration, user representation... 
etc.  But compared with others economy is simple, so it is a good place to 
start with.

All the best.
Jefsey

On 01:21 28/08/01, Mike Roberts said:
>Danny -
>
>The Budget Group is only one part of the ICANN budget process.  That 
>process has been and continues to be open to anyone or any organization 
>for participation and contribution.  In the first quarter of the calendar 
>year, a Preliminary budget is posted by the staff for community review and 
>comment, both electronic and at the first quarterly public forum.  Then a 
>proposed budget is posted in the second quarter for further review and 
>comment prior to adoption by the Board in June.  A public comment website 
>forum is maintained. See Appendix B of the Proposed Budget document for 
>the specific calendar that was followed this year.
>
>http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-14may01.htm
>
>Stuart Lynn tells me that he intends to accelerate the budget development 
>process this coming year, with initial opportunities for participation and 
>contribution to begin immediately after the annual meeting in Marina del 
>Rey in November.
>
>- Mike

- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:28:44 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 20:55 27/08/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Also, it seems to me that it is really easy to spend money that someone else
>is paying.

This is very well said. Was it about ICANN?

Dear Chuck,
the issue is not about this one or this one. It is about the correction of 
the mistakes we did. This is not because we do something wrong that we must 
continue doing the same, isn't it?

What we are all trying to understand is:
- - how much do pay the registrants?
- - how much goes to the registrars?
- - how much goes to the registries?
- - how much goes to the ICANN?
according which rules for .com, .net, .org as well as for .tv, .cc, .we or 
.it, .ja, .fr etc... and for.pro, .info, .biz .museum, etc.

Then why these rules which seem rather complex? for the same task and the 
same service.
Then what can be done to improve the things.

 From then on, only, one can evaluate if this is a sound situation or not 
and if things should be changed or not.  I wish only to underline that this 
is the minimum transparency due to people in here who are paying out of 
their family money.

You, the other Registries, the Registrars present in the GA have an 
understanding and information we have not. We thank you all for sharing it.
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 06:34:31 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ALSC report released

http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:42:31 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Regarding registry financial support of ICANN refer to the registry
agreements: Section 7 for .com; Section 3.14 for .net, .org and the
unsponsored TLDs; Section 3.15 for the sponsored TLDs.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 1:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: GA/DNSO Funding Issues

On 20:55 27/08/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Also, it seems to me that it is really easy to spend money that someone
else
>is paying.

This is very well said. Was it about ICANN?

Dear Chuck,
the issue is not about this one or this one. It is about the correction of 
the mistakes we did. This is not because we do something wrong that we must 
continue doing the same, isn't it?

What we are all trying to understand is:
- - how much do pay the registrants?
- - how much goes to the registrars?
- - how much goes to the registries?
- - how much goes to the ICANN?
according which rules for .com, .net, .org as well as for .tv, .cc, .we or 
.it, .ja, .fr etc... and for.pro, .info, .biz .museum, etc.

Then why these rules which seem rather complex? for the same task and the 
same service.
Then what can be done to improve the things.

 From then on, only, one can evaluate if this is a sound situation or not 
and if things should be changed or not.  I wish only to underline that this 
is the minimum transparency due to people in here who are paying out of 
their family money.

You, the other Registries, the Registrars present in the GA have an 
understanding and information we have not. We thank you all for sharing it.
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
- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:17:11 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?  I do !!

Hi William, Eric and All

Despite repeated requests, and a strong vote to the same effect, I note that
people are still discussing list rules, best practices and all sorts of
procedural issues on the [ga] list.

They are also clogging up the [ga-abuse] list with discussion about
complaints procedures.

Could you please take all of that stuff to [ga-rules].

Meanwhile I would ask the list monitors to expedite the current swag of
complaints.

Thank you all for your courtesy.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
To: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 3:31 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?

> Saturday, Saturday, August 25, 2001, 9:06:36 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Mr. Walsh,
>
> > Most of the time you expound legal principals which are erroneous at
best in that
> > you have no legal or legal scholarly training and jump to ridiculous
conclusions.
> > Now you jump to research conclusions which reveal a whole new level of
ignorance.
> > The research you do not know and I have forgotten could fill a library.
>
> > Show me one sentence in one place where one matter was voted upon that
demands
> > suspension.  Just one smart man.  If you can I shall self suspend for 48
hours.
> > You may want to callaborate with Mr Svensson.  the offer remains open
for 24
> > hours.  Do not promote vagueness for a taking of a right should be very
specific.
>
> No one has claimed that suspensions were mandatory, according to the
> VOTED ON RULES, they are at the discretion of the MODERATORS, subject
> to appeal to the Chair.
>
> No one has said otherwise.
>
> ----------------
> A list monitor may impose 2 sanctions against offenders:
>
> - Monitoring of posts. This will cause delay of postings from the affected
>   individual until a list moderator approves them as being within the
content
>   rules, or rejects them
> - Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that person not
to be
>   sent to the GA list.
>
> Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2
weeks),
> and are announced on the mailing list. Repeat offenders may get
correspondingly
> longer sentences (for instance 4 weeks for a second offense, 8 weeks for a
third).
> The period is decided by the list monitor.
> ------------------
>
> Why you got on this diatribe I do not know.
>
> I will say that I have lodged a complaint with the moderators about
> your message above.
>
> --
> 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-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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:58:04 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC report released

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml

I find this disturbing:

| Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among developers, providers and users,
| we would recommend that the At-Large membership select a third of ICANN's Board.
| ...
| We see the need to elect the six At-Large Directors of ICANN's Board from six
| different regions in the world, and have suggested for discussion, a division
| we believe is appropriate. This will be a larger number than at present,
| although less than envisaged earlier. 

The currently agreed (though not implemented, thanks to "board squatters")
balance has 9 At Large and 9 other directors.

The recommendation above represents an important change, giving the special
interest groups a clear majority. Methinks it should be vigorously opposed.
- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 07:58:00 -0700
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  GA/DNSO Funding (fwd)

 From the 01-02 budget document.  There are several unfilled positions 
not currently posted because of financial or other considerations.

"(b) Budgeted but currently vacant
Technical Systems Manager (vacant)
Policy Analyst/Manager (vacant)
ccTLD Administrative Assistant (vacant)
Webmaster (30% - see below; vacant)"

At 9:55 -0400 8/28/01, Judith Oppenheimer wrote:
>http://www.icann.org/general/jobs.htm
>Page Updated 21-Aug-2001
>
>CURRENT STAFF OPPORTUNITIES:
>
>Policy Analyst
>
>solely.
>
>Judith Oppenheimer

- -- 
- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:10:41 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC report released

Sandy Harris wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
>
> I find this disturbing:
>
> | Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among developers, providers and users,
> | we would recommend that the At-Large membership select a third of ICANN's Board.
> | ...
> | We see the need to elect the six At-Large Directors of ICANN's Board from six
> | different regions in the world, and have suggested for discussion, a division
> | we believe is appropriate. This will be a larger number than at present,
> | although less than envisaged earlier.
>
> The currently agreed (though not implemented, thanks to "board squatters")
> balance has 9 At Large and 9 other directors.
>
> The recommendation above represents an important change, giving the special
> interest groups a clear majority. Methinks it should be vigorously opposed.

Yes, I agree with Sandy.  The "Report" continually stresses the theme of `avoiding
minority capture', but the truth is that it is suggesting an organization that is
effectively captured by a minority and continues to further the existing status quo of
ineffectual bottom-up representation.  I am not surprised.

Sincerely,

Soiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:22:30 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC report released

I find this equally disturbing,

 "      We have thus decided to recommend a system with voting rights based on domain
names, and we have proposed the creation of a system in which those domain name
holders wishing to be part of the process also become part of the process of setting
up an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO). "

Now only property owners have the right to vote, seems to me most civilized nations
have already rejected this feudal notion.  I also seem to have made concessions in the
formulation of an individuals constituency which presupposed that the at-large had no
Domain name ownership requirements.  So now we deny active participation to over 85%
of the Internet users.

Eric

Sandy Harris wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > http://www.atlargestudy.org/draft_final.shtml
>
> I find this disturbing:
>
> | Based on our view of ICANN as a balance among developers, providers and users,
> | we would recommend that the At-Large membership select a third of ICANN's Board.
> | ...
> | We see the need to elect the six At-Large Directors of ICANN's Board from six
> | different regions in the world, and have suggested for discussion, a division
> | we believe is appropriate. This will be a larger number than at present,
> | although less than envisaged earlier.
>
> The currently agreed (though not implemented, thanks to "board squatters")
> balance has 9 At Large and 9 other directors.
>
> The recommendation above represents an important change, giving the special
> interest groups a clear majority. Methinks it should be vigorously opposed.
> --
> 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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 11:39:57 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ALSC report released

Yet another disturbing excerpt:

"Ensuring "users' voices" and diverse interests are represented on the Board by
high-quality Directors is paramount."

What exactly are the criteria behind such "high-quality Directors"?  Shouldn't the
electorate decide the quality of its own representation?  What kind of a report is this
anyway?!

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:47:38 -0700
From: Mike Roberts <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Towards Improved Representation in ICANN

At 23:01 -0400 8/27/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear Mike,

<snip>

>What role do you see for the General Assembly in your six-SO model?
>
>Best regards,
>Danny Younger

The ALSC report makes a cogent case for the establishment of an ALSO 
based on individual domain name holders.  I think the high energy 
level of the GA could be used well in getting the ALSO off the ground 
and making it - especially its Council - a success.

The report also says the committee thinks ways should be found to 
"jump start" the ALSO.  The GA has a nucleus of people who could 
contribute to that.

- - Mike

- -- 
- --
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 16:56:02 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Towards Improved Representation in ICANN

Mike Roberts wrote:

>At 23:01 -0400 8/27/01, [email-masked] wrote:
>>Dear Mike,
>
><snip>
>
>>What role do you see for the General Assembly in your six-SO model?
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Danny Younger
>
>The ALSC report makes a cogent case for the establishment of an ALSO
>based on individual domain name holders.  I think the high energy
>level of the GA could be used well in getting the ALSO off the ground
>and making it - especially its Council - a success.
>
>The report also says the committee thinks ways should be found to
>"jump start" the ALSO.  The GA has a nucleus of people who could
>contribute to that.

I have always stated that there are obvious synergies between the GA and the 
AtLarge, so I cannot argue with this.

Nevertheless, I would like to stress a point.
Once the AtLarge participation of individuals has been defined, either as 
ALSO or other forms (let's wait and see what NAIS proposes), the role of the 
GA will not disappear.

Your paper seems to address the DNSO/GA as a peculiar case, but it seems to 
me that ASO and PSO also have focused GAs that are providing an essential 
contribute to the debate.
I would expect the "individuals" currently in the DNSO/GA to migrate to the 
new structure (ALSO?), but I would still hope to see in the DNSO/GA a forum 
where the constituencies can share their respective views in an open and 
transparent way. To leave just the Council would deprive the DNSO of this 
important stage for the internal debate.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #709
************************