Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #734
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, September 13 2001         Volume 01 : Number 734

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

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:40:04 +0200
From: "Glen De Saint Gery" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] condolences

C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C13B98.CF88C780
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My sincere condolences in this shattering human tragedy.  While we =
mourn, we should have positive thoughts and courage to try and build =
love and undertstanding rather than hatred.
Glen=20

- ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C13B98.CF88C780
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My sincere condolences in this =
shattering human=20
tragedy.&nbsp; While we mourn, we should&nbsp;have positive thoughts and =
courage=20
to try and build love and undertstanding rather than =
hatred.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Glen</FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C13B98.CF88C780--

- --
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, 12 Sep 2001 12:03:02 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate-Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: The ccTLD position (was  Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>; "Don Evans"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; "'Bruce James'"
<[email-masked]>; "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

> I review this older post and ask if it is not exactly on point today as
the
> ccTLDs fight to take away seats from the at large while power brokers
promise
> certain votes to certain interests.

Please, a little accuracy, even if does damage your hyperbole.
The cctlds are not fighting to take away at large seats.

The cctlds agreed in an historic decision in Montevideo, that there were a
narrow range of global policy issues affecting ccTLds which the cc's would
be prepared to have developed through the ICANN consensus policy development
process.

That meant they agreed to be bound, within their ccTLDs, to implement the
outcome of those decisions.

(See the Montevideo communique, posted to this list.)

An obvious political consequence of that is for the CCTlds to ensure that
they have an appropriately balanced voice in the ICANN structure, which can
be heard while that policy is being developed. No one surely expects them to
accede to policies being made, which will bind them, in a forum they have
no, or insufficient voice in.

There is no  credible doubt that the proper forum for the discussion of
those cc issues is a ccSO.

There is no disagreement with our statement that the DNSO is the forum for
development of generic domain name issues. (Please note this is not the
place for a performance comment on how well the DNSO might be fulfilling
this role).

There is no disagreement that the DNSO is quite the wrong place for cc
issues such as the ICANN contract, cc Funding etc to be debated.

The fact is that an SO provides for board representation. We do not say this
should come at the "expense" of any other group's entitlement, whether
vested or otherwise, in Board seats.

The fact that there is a formidable challenge to the At Large Movement
having 9 seats is not of the ccTLDs making.

In the absence of creating new seats, we accept that our ccSO proposal will
require a re-allocation of existing seats. There are a large number of
factors which will go into the Board's re-evaluation of the balance of
representation in ICANN.

Once there is acceptance of the ccSO in principle, we expect to take part
with other stakeholders in discussions about that balance. That's a debate
we look forward to. In the meantime, lets stick to the facts.

Regards,

Peter Dengate Thrush
Co-Chair ccTLD Montevideo Meeting.

Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association

- --
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, 12 Sep 2001 12:38:41 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate-Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Condolances, and News from New York

I would like to add my condolences to all those that have been made on the
list today. Its hard to know what more to say. Like many I have friends and
colleagues in the surrounding area. My sister and her family were (we have
just found out) on one of the last flights out of LA, returning via London
from a family wedding in Scotland. Thankfully, they are safely home.
Joop, and others we guess, are stranded for some time in Montevideo.

One of the big things I have learned from this ICANN process, as we have
moved from city to city, and met the cc managers from each region, is how
much more alike we are than our differences would suggest. This tragedy
certainly puts our own sometimes bitter arguments into perspective.

(Thanks for the news Joanna. For the record, we are getting full BBC
coverage from the UK, including local comment. I agree that New Yorkers, and
"DC-ites" will survive this.)

Regards

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:27:04 +0200
From: Thierry Amoussougbo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Condolences

Same to me.

Thierry

At 12:34 11/09/01 -0700, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>I too wish to express my condolences and sympathies to all the victims and
>families affected by these heinous acts.
>
>Most Sincerely,
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
>Eric Dierker wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I wish to extend my sympathy and prayers to all who will suffer from the
>> horrible tragedy which befell New York this morning.
>>
>> May we all try to do our part to use this tool, the Internet, to move
>> the world toward a higher understanding of each other and rid us of such
>> hatred.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Eric
>>
>> --
>> 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
>

- --
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, 13 Sep 2001 03:40:37 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] what we share

At 16:48 12/09/01, William X Walsh wrote:

>They are happening.  Regretfully, several Islamic communities, and
>religious centers have received telephone threats this evening here in
>the state of California.
>
>This was not an attack by an ethnicity or religion. This was an attack
>on America and the American people, of all ethnicities and religions.
>
>This was an attack on the peace and dignity of the world really.
>
>No Americans should be singled out, because of their ethnicity or
>religion.  They are as repulsed, angry, and shocked by this attack as
>any other Americans.  We shouldn't subject them to another reason to
>fear.  There is already enough fear this day.

About this I wholly agree with William.
The threat of a backlash towards American innocents of Arab descent is all 
too real.
It's Pearl Habour all over again, minus an identified responsible party.
Worse for the civil liberties: the war on the shadows has now started. 
Collateral damage may create the breeding ground for new and more dangerous 
terrorism, springing directly from American soil.

- --
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, 12 Sep 2001 18:49:31 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The ccTLD position (was  Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

At 02:03 12/09/01, Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:
> > I review this older post and ask if it is not exactly on point today as
> > the ccTLDs fight to take away seats from the at large while power brokers
> > brokers promise certain votes to certain interests.
>
>Please, a little accuracy, even if does damage your hyperbole.
>The cctlds are not fighting to take away at large seats.

Noted. So you support that Internet Participants may be represented though 
their dedicated "netwide" interests groups thought the SOs, and 
individually through the @large. And that this representation is balanced 
9/9+1 or the like.

>The cctlds agreed in an historic decision in Montevideo, that there were a
>narrow range of global policy issues affecting ccTLds which the cc's would
>be prepared to have developed through the ICANN consensus policy development
>process.

This seems contradictory to me from observation and experience. There is an 
ICANN policy motivated by the legitimate need of the ICANN corporation to 
survive and develop in cooperation with the DoC interests. There is an 
Internet consensus policy motivated by the Internet Participant common 
interest. There are other global interests motivated by different kind of 
community interests. Some we know: the GAC interests of the States, the 
WIPO, the GIP, etc...

>That meant they agreed to be bound, within their ccTLDs, to implement the
>outcome of those decisions.
>
>(See the Montevideo communique, posted to this list.)
>
>An obvious political consequence of that is for the CCTlds to ensure that
>they have an appropriately balanced voice in the ICANN structure, which can
>be heard while that policy is being developed. No one surely expects them to
>accede to policies being made, which will bind them, in a forum they have
>no, or insufficient voice in.

Total agreement.

>There is no  credible doubt that the proper forum for the discussion of
>those cc issues is a ccSO.

Total agreement if you want them to be discussed under the ICANN and as 
pure ccTLDs instead of NICs what may lead @large to develop their own 
substitution to NICs. We need a structured animation of the LICs. ALso many 
extended services start developing and call for infrastructure support and 
commercial alliances.

>There is no disagreement with our statement that the DNSO is the forum for
>development of generic domain name issues. (Please note this is not the
>place for a performance comment on how well the DNSO might be fulfilling
>this role).

Here is the problem. The DNSO is not meant to be the forum for the 
development of the generic domain name issues. It is meant to be the 
organization developing the ICANN name space management policy.

Be sure that should the ccTLD stop attending the DNSO this GA and @large 
will soon propose an alternative to the ccTLDs they may dialog with. As DPF 
documented it your nz ccTLD spends 10% of its revenues to protect itself 
against the ICANN in attending the ICANN - while he thinks - and I agree - 
they do not need the ICANN.

If you use the ICANN only as an Hotel for your meetings, there are cheaper 
ones.

Whatever the organization the ccTLDs undertake, they must first join all 
those who want to break the inept rigidness of the XIXth century ICANN 
structure and hierarchical flow chart. Constituencies must be able to 
attend any SO the deem necessary. ccTLDs must participate to ASO, PSO, DNSO 
while forming their own ccSO (hopefully NICSO). The Registrants 
Constituency underway wants to dialog with *every* TLD Manager - gTLD 
constituency, ccSO and TLDA.

>There is no disagreement that the DNSO is quite the wrong place for cc
>issues such as the ICANN contract, cc Funding etc to be debated.

Absolutely true.

>The fact is that an SO provides for board representation. We do not say this
>should come at the "expense" of any other group's entitlement, whether
>vested or otherwise, in Board seats.

This is not gospel. Another way would be that SO endorse candidates to be 
selected by the Constituencies as a college.

Even if this is true, this only mean that SOs have to reorganize their 9 seats.

>The fact that there is a formidable challenge to the At Large Movement
>having 9 seats is not of the ccTLDs making.

There is no formidable challenge. There is a progressive retreat of the 
anti-stability mongers. For a long they obtained that 0 of the 9 @large be 
elected. They accepted 5. Now they agree on 6. We will make sure that 9 are 
elected. I only do not see the advantage for ccTLDs to abandon what makes 
their strength and interest for ICANN casuistic's love (would you be a 
lawyer :-) ).

I mean that today the best ccTLDs allies are the @large. That your 
legitimacy can only come from the IANA or from your LIC and the LIC's spine 
are the @large. That your activity and services development is to the LIC 
and again in priority to its moving edge, i.e. the @large.  And your best 
protection is the local @large support while the only real thread on you is 
the opposition of the local @large people.

>In the absence of creating new seats, we accept that our ccSO proposal will
>require a re-allocation of existing seats. There are a large number of
>factors which will go into the Board's re-evaluation of the balance of
>representation in ICANN.

Anything which unbalance the Internet Participant representation between 
them as groups and them as individuals will lead to instability. The BoD is 
not a parliament. It is a Board. What is demanded  internally is 
competence, honesty and control on the Staff and externally it is to show 
enough diverse origin for different interests to trust their collective 
decisions.

This trust will never be granted to an unbalanced BoD. You may like it or 
not, but this is he way the  man is built.

>Once there is acceptance of the ccSO in principle, we expect to take part
>with other stakeholders in discussions about that balance. That's a debate
>we look forward to. In the meantime, lets stick to the facts.

If you mean by stakeholders the other constituencies and their interests in 
the different SOs, I support that. If you mean to fall into Joe Sims' trap 
... to over and over complicating the obvious to permit ICANN to address 
the problem it created through binding contracts to its advantage (but it 
has not the practical capacity to enforce, I disagree.

A question: what has achieved the ICANN?

- - IANA - may be something in the Channel Islands, not Pitcairn yet, 
accepted .ca, followed the .us travel, a coup on .au with a new policy to 
justify not yet published. Uncertainty about .eu and .ps. The change in the 
name of two countries - hardly their real doing (Congo and Russia).

- - ASO - where is IPv6 and a general education and consensus?

- - PSO - show me an interesting project. Not even a ccTLD management system. 
ENUM to NSI?

- - DNSO - oh! yes a big result: Plan B. Billions given to Verisign and to 
the ccTLD competition. Tow TLD on the root - including a collider - two 
brilliant TLD sunrises

- - Registrars: a "separate" business activity with half its members going 
down or being saved in being aggregated to the leading Registry.

- - Root Servers. Nothing special by their own (they have not even yet hired 
the Technical Manager to be a contact with people in charge). Still half 
the Root Servers on the East Coast as the most important threads on the 
world's economy as shown in the last hours..... Oh! yes they published the 
St. Lynn Good Boot on single authoritative root of failures.

I would really want to know what real they  did more?

So why not to agree all together about what we want the ICANN to be and 
force it to be it for its and our good?

We would all save a lot of time, money and efforts and we would help the 
economy restarting. Recession was a thread, the WTC Tragedy is going to be 
a bad thing. An Internet development may have a key role in a a positive 
reaction.

IMHO the quickest way to make it is an objective and fruitfull alliance 
between @large and ccTLDs.
Jefsey

>Regards,
>
>Peter Dengate Thrush
>Co-Chair ccTLD Montevideo Meeting.
>
>Senior Vice Chair
>Asia Pacific TLD Association
>
>
>
>
>--
>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, 12 Sep 2001 10:49:40 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The ccTLD position (was  Re: [ga] taking positions oncountry specific legislation

Gentlemen,

Let me try to make this as succinct as possible.  I do not see ccTLDs
grouping
together within ICANN and accepting its' authority as appropriate for
the countries
which the ccTLDs reflect.

I am of the opinion that ccTLDs should be managed for the benefit of the
local
internet community, which I conclude are the people of the individual
nation.

All I see coming out of the ccTLD constituency has to do with benefits
to the
Registries.  These are not synonymous with benefits to individual users.

So why would a country want the ccTLD managers to obtain more power to
the
detriment of the users?

Please note this is a question and opinion, not a statement of fact.

Sincerely,
Eric
- --
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, 12 Sep 2001 14:49:59 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The ccTLD position (was  Re: [ga] taking positions on country specific legislation

Mr. Thrush,

I am afraid that this response is disingenuous at best.

Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
>
> snip
>
> >We must stand together
> > that there are no deletions to seats to the at large based upon creation
> of any
> > individuals constituency or any new ccTLD constituencies/SOs.
>
> As I have said, the CCTld managers see these as separate events, and you
> would do well to uncouple them in both your mind and your rhetoric.
>

Who cares how they see these matters.  The alleged intention is not at issue.
If they take seats which were heretofore allocated for the At-Large, then they
take AL seats. Note also you are referring to managers of registries not users
or domain name holders.  There is good argument you should simply be in the
Registry constituency.

>
> The At Large seats will stand or fall on the basis of reaction to the ALSC
> report, Mike Roberts paper, the Nais report, and the Board's and other
> people's  perception of the existence and value of a real at Large
> membership and its likely contribution to ICANN narrow scope of management
> of Names and Numbers. The cost of reaching and maintaining this group is a
> further factor.
>

Since when did these matters happen in a finely sectioned off vacuum? Peoples
perception of the existence and value of a ccSO seems to be far more
questionable, especially since it would simply be more registries with seats on
the BoD.

>
> OTOH, the ccSO is a force that has emerged under a true bottom up consensus,
> not only of those directly affected, but also with support from a majority
> of other constituencies.

Users and Domain Name holders have no say, in the ccTLD constituency, in fact
most meetings exclude all but managers.  If you consider that bottoms-up I can
see why you want to prevent AL seats.

>
>
> Allocation of board seats to the ccSO is not the cause of any loss by the
> ALM.
>

Your math fails me.  Your understanding of cause and effect is really just a
failure to take responsibility.

>
> However, if we can manage the process of re-structuring so that these events
> occur simultaneously, and thereby diminish any period of uncertainty or
> confusion, I think you will agree that is desirable. But please don't label
> them as cause and effect.
> >
>

I only see this as occurring upon your accepting responsibility for your
conduct.  If you refuse to accept actions taken by your group have an effect
upon others then we will not have a point of cooperation.

>
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Co-Chair, Montevideo ccTLD Meeting
>
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
>

Sincerely,
simple dotcommoner

- --
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, 12 Sep 2001 19:54:18 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Condolances, and News from New York

Speaking personally, I would like to express my thanks for expressions of
support from all over the world, both on and off-list, which have touched us
here. When all this is all over, (if ever), I will write a piece on the part
the internet has played. In short, it has proved the most trustworthy of all
media for direct one to one communication. However, I do wonder whether it
would be a different story if one of ICANN's root servers were located below
14th Street in lower Manhattan.

For the record, over the last 30 hours, in this area at least, it has proved
extremely difficult to get an international phone call through, lines are
jammed, and, as you may know, both wireless phones and NYC TV transmission
signals have been severely disrupted, as many attenae on the WTC rooftops
were lost. I cannot be alone in having relied on email to keep in touch
worldwide, for which I am very grateful, not least to those in this
organization who have helped build the thing. If this had happened
pre-internet, it would be a different story. Many are using email and
relying on websites to access emergency information, although I believe many
of these are also overloaded.

The bad news is that my husband's cousin is missing, Richard Catarelli, who
was located in WTC Building One, above the 65th floor where the first plane
struck. Consequently, I have reorganized my priorities, and regret that I am
forced to recuse myself from ICANN business from the time being.

Regards,
Joanna

on 9/11/01 8:38 PM, Peter Dengate-Thrush at [email-masked] wrote:

> I would like to add my condolences to all those that have been made on the
> list today. Its hard to know what more to say. Like many I have friends and
> colleagues in the surrounding area. My sister and her family were (we have
> just found out) on one of the last flights out of LA, returning via London
> from a family wedding in Scotland. Thankfully, they are safely home.
> Joop, and others we guess, are stranded for some time in Montevideo.
> 
> One of the big things I have learned from this ICANN process, as we have
> moved from city to city, and met the cc managers from each region, is how
> much more alike we are than our differences would suggest. This tragedy
> certainly puts our own sometimes bitter arguments into perspective.
> 
> (Thanks for the news Joanna. For the record, we are getting full BBC
> coverage from the UK, including local comment. I agree that New Yorkers, and
> "DC-ites" will survive this.)
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
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, 12 Sep 2001 21:45:06 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Condolances, and News from New York

Joanna, our thoughts are with you in this. We all hope for a positive
outcome... Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 7:54 PM
To: Peter Dengate-Thrush; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Condolances, and News from New York

Speaking personally, I would like to express my thanks for expressions of
support from all over the world, both on and off-list, which have touched us
here. When all this is all over, (if ever), I will write a piece on the part
the internet has played. In short, it has proved the most trustworthy of all
media for direct one to one communication. However, I do wonder whether it
would be a different story if one of ICANN's root servers were located below
14th Street in lower Manhattan.

For the record, over the last 30 hours, in this area at least, it has proved
extremely difficult to get an international phone call through, lines are
jammed, and, as you may know, both wireless phones and NYC TV transmission
signals have been severely disrupted, as many attenae on the WTC rooftops
were lost. I cannot be alone in having relied on email to keep in touch
worldwide, for which I am very grateful, not least to those in this
organization who have helped build the thing. If this had happened
pre-internet, it would be a different story. Many are using email and
relying on websites to access emergency information, although I believe many
of these are also overloaded.

The bad news is that my husband's cousin is missing, Richard Catarelli, who
was located in WTC Building One, above the 65th floor where the first plane
struck. Consequently, I have reorganized my priorities, and regret that I am
forced to recuse myself from ICANN business from the time being.

Regards,
Joanna

on 9/11/01 8:38 PM, Peter Dengate-Thrush at [email-masked] wrote:

> I would like to add my condolences to all those that have been made on the
> list today. Its hard to know what more to say. Like many I have friends
and
> colleagues in the surrounding area. My sister and her family were (we have
> just found out) on one of the last flights out of LA, returning via London
> from a family wedding in Scotland. Thankfully, they are safely home.
> Joop, and others we guess, are stranded for some time in Montevideo.
> 
> One of the big things I have learned from this ICANN process, as we have
> moved from city to city, and met the cc managers from each region, is how
> much more alike we are than our differences would suggest. This tragedy
> certainly puts our own sometimes bitter arguments into perspective.
> 
> (Thanks for the news Joanna. For the record, we are getting full BBC
> coverage from the UK, including local comment. I agree that New Yorkers,
and
> "DC-ites" will survive this.)
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:15:13 +1200
From: "Peter Dengate-Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The ccTLD position (was  Re: [ga] taking positions on country  specific legislation

- ----- Original Message -----

From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>

snip

>We must stand together
> that there are no deletions to seats to the at large based upon creation
of any
> individuals constituency or any new ccTLD constituencies/SOs.

As I have said, the CCTld managers see these as separate events, and you
would do well to uncouple them in both your mind and your rhetoric.

The At Large seats will stand or fall on the basis of reaction to the ALSC
report, Mike Roberts paper, the Nais report, and the Board's and other
people's  perception of the existence and value of a real at Large
membership and its likely contribution to ICANN narrow scope of management
of Names and Numbers. The cost of reaching and maintaining this group is a
further factor.

OTOH, the ccSO is a force that has emerged under a true bottom up consensus,
not only of those directly affected, but also with support from a majority
of other constituencies.

Allocation of board seats to the ccSO is not the cause of any loss by the
ALM.

However, if we can manage the process of re-structuring so that these events
occur simultaneously, and thereby diminish any period of uncertainty or
confusion, I think you will agree that is desirable. But please don't label
them as cause and effect.
>

Regards
Peter Dengate Thrush
Co-Chair, Montevideo ccTLD Meeting

Senior Vice Chair
Asia Pacific TLD Association

- --
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, 12 Sep 2001 23:27:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: The ccTLD position (was  Re: [ga] taking positions on country  specific legislation

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter Dengate-Thrush wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
>
> snip
>
> >We must stand together
> > that there are no deletions to seats to the at large based upon creation
> of any
> > individuals constituency or any new ccTLD constituencies/SOs.
>
> As I have said, the CCTld managers see these as separate events, and you
> would do well to uncouple them in both your mind and your rhetoric.

  This suggestion may well be a good one, but is more difficult given the
level of distrust that the ICANN BoD and staff have both engendered
and deserved of late sense MDR.

>
>
> The At Large seats will stand or fall on the basis of reaction to the ALSC
> report, Mike Roberts paper, the Nais report, and the Board's and other
> people's  perception of the existence and value of a real at Large
> membership and its likely contribution to ICANN narrow scope of management
> of Names and Numbers. The cost of reaching and maintaining this group is a
> further factor.

  First of all it has already been shown that costs relative to an At-Large
membership
is minimal despite it's size, but would be very difficult to be considered
legitimate
should ANY stakeholder be selectively excluded or Censored.

  As for Mike Roberts paper, a basic slur upon the DNSO GA in particular
IS, and should not be a factor in any rational person/stakeholders mind in
the makeup of the At-Large.  The ALSC's obviously skewed and well known
previously determined ideological bent, is NOT a representation of the
Forum's broad ranging consensus of comments expressed on that forum.

  The NAIS report/response to the ALSC's final Report Draft, was closer to
what the WHite Paper and MoU requirements for "All interested Parties"
as At-Large members, but in some specific areas of minor consequence
still falls short of the requirenements of the White Paper and MoU....

>
>
> OTOH, the ccSO is a force that has emerged under a true bottom up consensus,
> not only of those directly affected, but also with support from a majority
> of other constituencies.

  I don't believe that I have seen a supporting resolution for the formation
of a ccSO coming from any of the other constituency's.  If such a document
outlining your contention of such support could you please provide us
all with a pointer(URL) to it?

>
>
> Allocation of board seats to the ccSO is not the cause of any loss by the
> ALM.

  We [INEGroup] agree that the potential formation of a ccSO should not
in ANY way effect the number or percentage of seats on the BoD that
the ALM must obtain, which cannot be less than 50%.  If this would mean
additional seats on the ICANN BOD to achieve this goal, than that should be
done.

>
>
> However, if we can manage the process of re-structuring so that these events
> occur simultaneously, and thereby diminish any period of uncertainty or
> confusion, I think you will agree that is desirable. But please don't label
> them as cause and effect.

  The labeling of cause and effect is indeed seemingly what the present
ICANN BOD has hoist upon all of us.  Ergo, this is not only Eric's
concern, and certainly not of his doing.  The discussed or proposed
numbers don't lie...

>
> >
>
> Regards
> Peter Dengate Thrush
> Co-Chair, Montevideo ccTLD Meeting
>
> Senior Vice Chair
> Asia Pacific TLD Association
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 23:37:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Condolances, and News from New York

Marilyn, Joanna and all assembly members,

  I, and our members, thoughts on this tragedy and it's long reaching
consequences are also with Joanna.  I hope however that Joanna
will not give these terrorists even a small victory in her absence from
these very important debates and discussions.  We NEED her ideas,
percervearence, and steadfast honesty and forthrightness.  It is an example
for all of us and should be for anyone, especially you Marilyn!

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Joanna, our thoughts are with you in this. We all hope for a positive
> outcome... Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 7:54 PM
> To: Peter Dengate-Thrush; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Condolances, and News from New York
>
> Speaking personally, I would like to express my thanks for expressions of
> support from all over the world, both on and off-list, which have touched us
> here. When all this is all over, (if ever), I will write a piece on the part
> the internet has played. In short, it has proved the most trustworthy of all
> media for direct one to one communication. However, I do wonder whether it
> would be a different story if one of ICANN's root servers were located below
> 14th Street in lower Manhattan.
>
> For the record, over the last 30 hours, in this area at least, it has proved
> extremely difficult to get an international phone call through, lines are
> jammed, and, as you may know, both wireless phones and NYC TV transmission
> signals have been severely disrupted, as many attenae on the WTC rooftops
> were lost. I cannot be alone in having relied on email to keep in touch
> worldwide, for which I am very grateful, not least to those in this
> organization who have helped build the thing. If this had happened
> pre-internet, it would be a different story. Many are using email and
> relying on websites to access emergency information, although I believe many
> of these are also overloaded.
>
> The bad news is that my husband's cousin is missing, Richard Catarelli, who
> was located in WTC Building One, above the 65th floor where the first plane
> struck. Consequently, I have reorganized my priorities, and regret that I am
> forced to recuse myself from ICANN business from the time being.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
>
> on 9/11/01 8:38 PM, Peter Dengate-Thrush at [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > I would like to add my condolences to all those that have been made on the
> > list today. Its hard to know what more to say. Like many I have friends
> and
> > colleagues in the surrounding area. My sister and her family were (we have
> > just found out) on one of the last flights out of LA, returning via London
> > from a family wedding in Scotland. Thankfully, they are safely home.
> > Joop, and others we guess, are stranded for some time in Montevideo.
> >
> > One of the big things I have learned from this ICANN process, as we have
> > moved from city to city, and met the cc managers from each region, is how
> > much more alike we are than our differences would suggest. This tragedy
> > certainly puts our own sometimes bitter arguments into perspective.
> >
> > (Thanks for the news Joanna. For the record, we are getting full BBC
> > coverage from the UK, including local comment. I agree that New Yorkers,
> and
> > "DC-ites" will survive this.)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #734
************************