Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #754
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, September 23 2001          Volume 01 : Number 754

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 15:55:07 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] destroyer of the GA/ Intentional?

Danny?

Please someone point to this man's accomplishments, {oh and where is
Patrick }.
Joanna and Joop I am all ears, what say thee Jefsey.  If I recall you
trashed me in
favor of Danny because??????  Where is he now?  No coalition and no
rudder on a
ship in current.  Words will not satisfy us dotcommoners but action and
organization from an Administrator will = you guys get on this guy and
fix this
mess. You created it!

Danny,

Would you please act like a chairman.  Organize and put into place your
plans so
that they may be accomplished.  Bless us Danny and at least assign and
delegate,
God man you have put us out of business.  You are the weakest
administrator I have
ever seen in all our entire lives.

                     Date: 1592
                     1 a : the presiding officer of a meeting or an
organization or
committee
                     b : the administrative officer of a department of
instruction
(as in a
                     college)
                     2 : a carrier of a sedan chair

I am beginning to think that you alone will be remembered as the one man
who turned
the GA into a pile of nothingness.  You have not done crap, no you have
done crap.
Has one motion been passed under your guidance?  Has one pressing issue
been
brought to consensus?  You have accomplished one thing and that is
paralysis of the
finest group of thinkers throughout the world!

You fit the definition of chairman well = Vint Cerf and Mr. Sheppards
sedan chair
carrier.

Pissed off!!
Eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> In an effort to assist the ALSC, I have noted the areas in their draft report
> where they request the benefit of additional input.   Your comments on these
> topics would be appreciated.
>
> 01.  the risk of capture or fraud  --
> "There are issues with a system in which domain name holders are given the
> option of becoming part of an ALSO and taking part in elections that need
> further discussion and elaboration (e.g. there might be some risk of capture,
> although less than in the email-based case)."  "...assumption that
> organizations will not attempt to create or influence large numbers of
> individual domain name holders voting on their behalf, and we are looking for
> input on ways to detect and avoid such behavior."
>
> 02.  defining geographical zones --
> "...six different regions in the world, and have suggested for discussion, a
> division we believe is appropriate..."
>
> 03.  providing financial assistance to users --
> "(Any e-mail address holder can acquire a domain name at minimal cost, but
> with some effort. To help ensure that this is not an impediment to those who
> want a domain name and want to be an At-Large member, the ALSC suggests that
> the ICANN community identify and encourage organizations that could provide
> appropriate assistance to such users.)"  "To help ensure that this approach
> to At-Large membership is not an impediment to those who want a domain name
> and want to participate in an ALSO, the ALSC suggests that the ICANN
> community identify and encourage organizations that could provide appropriate
> assistance to such users. We encourage input on this and hope to include
> specific suggestions and named institutions in our final report."
>
> 04.  individual/institutional dichotemy --
> "…but only individuals may vote. Institutions already play a greater role in
> the existing Supporting Organizations, so this seems an appropriate balance.
> We encourage your input on this issue."  "We recognize that using "individual
> domain name holders" for At-Large membership could include a named person
> behind large and small institutions' domain name registration. We invite
> comments on this point."
>
> 05.  implementation and management measures --
> "The ALSC assumes there will be a need for committees or working groups and
> requests input on potential implementation measures. We will seek to develop
> specific, consensus recommendations on execution for the Board's
> consideration."  "…initial outreach and organizing efforts be undertaken. The
> ALSC assumes committees/working groups and specific guidelines will be
> needed, and requests input on potential implementation and management
> measures. We will seek to develop specific, consensus recommendations on
> execution of these recommendations for the Board's consideration."
> "...structure and processes for an At-Large membership election:  The ALSC
> recognizes the complexity involved in planning, executing and managing such
> processes, and encourages discussions, analysis and input on implementation
> options. We expect to provide more detailed process recommendations in our
> final report after we receive public input."  "...Guidelines for the creation
> of an ALSO with the mission of At-Large outreach and education, engaging
> members, aggregating views, enabling consensus decision-making, and working
> closely with other Supporting Organizations to address issues and develop
> policy on Internet user issues that fall within ICANN's specific technical
> and administrative mission."
>
> 06.  pluralism --
> "The ALSC also is aware that potential would exist for holding domain names
> to influence the At-Large membership and representation, and encourages input
> on potential mechanisms to ensure geographic diversity and pluralism"  "By
> giving the At-Large Council the responsibility to help organize local and
> regional organizational structures, the ALSO will have a critical framework
> that enables At-Large members to learn about and discuss At-Large issues in
> their own language, find common ground with users in other localities and
> regions and ultimately provide meaningful user advice to the Board. We
> welcome comments on potential by-country diversity requirements among these
> various individuals."  "...Guidelines for establishment of local and
> regional-based ALSO entities to build a global ALSO framework."
>
> 07.  privacy protections --
> "...sudden large numbers of individual holders representing the domain names
> of a single entity will most likely be visible, depending on the final
> decision about privacy protections for At-Large members."  "...we solicit
> input on specific mechanisms - including user choice - to protect the privacy
> of At-Large members while simultaneously encouraging open, transparent
> communication among them and with the various organizations and interest
> groups that wish to educate them and solicit support for their policies."
> "...Methods for ensuring At-Large member privacy while maximizing the
> opportunities for open, transparent education and discussion among members
> about ICANN issues."
>
> 08.  free speech --
> "…any attempt by organizations to influence votes on a broad scale is likely
> to backfire, as at least some of the subjects of such attempts will publicize
> them and complain. We welcome input on what specific rules or procedures may
> be appropriate, while recognizing institutions rights to free speech."
>
> 09.  mobilizing the grassroots community --
> "The ALSC also sees great benefit in immediately "jumpstarting" the ALSO with
> voluntary, grassroots efforts and encourages input how this could be
> accomplished."  "...Global outreach and organizing campaign focused on
> engaging Internet users at the local and regional level."
>
> 10.  additional funding issues --
> "The ALSC is in the process of developing specific const estimates for
> implementation of its recommendations. ICANN may want to consider financial
> contributions from outside sources to help offset this cost. The ALSC has
> considered a number of approaches to address the outreach, development and
> management issues involved in simultaneously launching and funding an ALSO
> and conducting a global election. The ALSC requests input on potential
> implementation mechanisms and processes and will seek to develop specific,
> consensus recommendations on execution for the Board's consideration."
>
> 11.  technical issues --
> "There are also significant technical issues that need to be addressed."
> "... Detailed investigation of using the Extensible Provisioning Protocol for
> automatic updating and gathering of registrant data for those that opt-in to
> At-Large membership."  "... Membership registration processes and issuance of
> a request for proposals for management of a database/processing system to
> receive payments and membership information from registrars."  "...
> Agreements with TLD registrars for implementation of At-Large membership
> registration and collection of membership fees."
> --
> 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, 22 Sep 2001 19:19:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Restructuring Working Group

Danny and all stakeholders or interested parties,

[email-masked] wrote:

> In an effort to assist the ALSC, I have noted the areas in their draft report
> where they request the benefit of additional input.   Your comments on these
> topics would be appreciated.
>
> 01.  the risk of capture or fraud  --
> "There are issues with a system in which domain name holders are given the
> option of becoming part of an ALSO and taking part in elections that need
> further discussion and elaboration (e.g. there might be some risk of capture,
> although less than in the email-based case)."  "...assumption that
> organizations will not attempt to create or influence large numbers of
> individual domain name holders voting on their behalf, and we are looking for
> input on ways to detect and avoid such behavior."

  The easiest way is to discontinue this practice and only have the ALSO
members register individually whether or not they hold a domain name.
We believe that the method you outline here is dangerous with respect
to well financed terrorists organizations currently using our (US) banking
system with credit cards issued from these banking institutions, as reported
today on Meet the Press, to allow for a large number of these undesirable
individuals causing problems that we do not want and certainly don't need.

>
>
> 02.  defining geographical zones --
> "...six different regions in the world, and have suggested for discussion, a
> division we believe is appropriate..."
>
> 03.  providing financial assistance to users --
> "(Any e-mail address holder can acquire a domain name at minimal cost, but
> with some effort. To help ensure that this is not an impediment to those who
> want a domain name and want to be an At-Large member, the ALSC suggests that
> the ICANN community identify and encourage organizations that could provide
> appropriate assistance to such users.)"  "To help ensure that this approach
> to At-Large membership is not an impediment to those who want a domain name
> and want to participate in an ALSO, the ALSC suggests that the ICANN
> community identify and encourage organizations that could provide appropriate
> assistance to such users. We encourage input on this and hope to include
> specific suggestions and named institutions in our final report."

  This is of course pure political nonsense and is being used as a method of
excluding those stakeholders that are not and do not wish to be Domain Name
holders/owners yet are contributors to the internet in any number of already
well known ways...

>
>
> 04.  individual/institutional dichotemy --
> "…but only individuals may vote. Institutions already play a greater role in
> the existing Supporting Organizations, so this seems an appropriate balance.
> We encourage your input on this issue."  "We recognize that using "individual
> domain name holders" for At-Large membership could include a named person
> behind large and small institutions' domain name registration. We invite
> comments on this point."

  This does not cover the situation with those that hold 3rd or 4th level domain
names.  As such it is not representative of the stakeholder community.

>
>
> 05.  implementation and management measures --
> "The ALSC assumes there will be a need for committees or working groups and
> requests input on potential implementation measures. We will seek to develop
> specific, consensus recommendations on execution for the Board's
> consideration."  "…initial outreach and organizing efforts be undertaken. The
> ALSC assumes committees/working groups and specific guidelines will be
> needed, and requests input on potential implementation and management
> measures. We will seek to develop specific, consensus recommendations on
> execution of these recommendations for the Board's consideration."
> "...structure and processes for an At-Large membership election:  The ALSC
> recognizes the complexity involved in planning, executing and managing such
> processes, and encourages discussions, analysis and input on implementation
> options. We expect to provide more detailed process recommendations in our
> final report after we receive public input."  "...Guidelines for the creation
> of an ALSO with the mission of At-Large outreach and education, engaging
> members, aggregating views, enabling consensus decision-making, and working
> closely with other Supporting Organizations to address issues and develop
> policy on Internet user issues that fall within ICANN's specific technical
> and administrative mission."
>
> 06.  pluralism --
> "The ALSC also is aware that potential would exist for holding domain names
> to influence the At-Large membership and representation, and encourages input
> on potential mechanisms to ensure geographic diversity and pluralism"  "By
> giving the At-Large Council the responsibility to help organize local and
> regional organizational structures, the ALSO will have a critical framework
> that enables At-Large members to learn about and discuss At-Large issues in
> their own language, find common ground with users in other localities and
> regions and ultimately provide meaningful user advice to the Board. We
> welcome comments on potential by-country diversity requirements among these
> various individuals."  "...Guidelines for establishment of local and
> regional-based ALSO entities to build a global ALSO framework."
>
> 07.  privacy protections --
> "...sudden large numbers of individual holders representing the domain names
> of a single entity will most likely be visible, depending on the final
> decision about privacy protections for At-Large members."  "...we solicit
> input on specific mechanisms - including user choice - to protect the privacy
> of At-Large members while simultaneously encouraging open, transparent
> communication among them and with the various organizations and interest
> groups that wish to educate them and solicit support for their policies."
> "...Methods for ensuring At-Large member privacy while maximizing the
> opportunities for open, transparent education and discussion among members
> about ICANN issues."
>
> 08.  free speech --
> "…any attempt by organizations to influence votes on a broad scale is likely
> to backfire, as at least some of the subjects of such attempts will publicize
> them and complain. We welcome input on what specific rules or procedures may
> be appropriate, while recognizing institutions rights to free speech."
>
> 09.  mobilizing the grassroots community --
> "The ALSC also sees great benefit in immediately "jumpstarting" the ALSO with
> voluntary, grassroots efforts and encourages input how this could be
> accomplished."  "...Global outreach and organizing campaign focused on
> engaging Internet users at the local and regional level."
>
> 10.  additional funding issues --
> "The ALSC is in the process of developing specific const estimates for
> implementation of its recommendations. ICANN may want to consider financial
> contributions from outside sources to help offset this cost. The ALSC has
> considered a number of approaches to address the outreach, development and
> management issues involved in simultaneously launching and funding an ALSO
> and conducting a global election. The ALSC requests input on potential
> implementation mechanisms and processes and will seek to develop specific,
> consensus recommendations on execution for the Board's consideration."
>
> 11.  technical issues --
> "There are also significant technical issues that need to be addressed."
> "... Detailed investigation of using the Extensible Provisioning Protocol for
> automatic updating and gathering of registrant data for those that opt-in to
> At-Large membership."  "... Membership registration processes and issuance of
> a request for proposals for management of a database/processing system to
> receive payments and membership information from registrars."  "...
> Agreements with TLD registrars for implementation of At-Large membership
> registration and collection of membership fees."
> --
> 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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:09:02 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  destroyer of the GA/ Intentional?

Dear Eric,

Thank you for expressing your concerns.  I too have some concerns that I 
would like to share with you...  

When the ICANN organization contemplates a new structure that only calls for 
Supporting Organizations for providers, developers, and users, the 
probability of the continued existence of the DNSO is either slim or none 
(and by my estimation, Slim has already left town).  

When registries and registrars are promised their own SO with the right to 
elect their own Board members, they have no need for continued participation 
in a dysfunctional  DNSO (they are quite comfortable routing around this 
point of failure anyway).   Members of the Non-Commercial constituency have 
articulated that they see no need to attempt to raise the $30,000 in dues 
owed to the DNSO because they no longer expect it to survive.  The ccTLDs 
have already indicated that they will no longer support the DNSO past the end 
of its fiscal year and expect to have their own SO.  The Business 
Constituency is already attempting to position itself on the provider side of 
the equation (much to the consternation of other providers that do not see 
such a "fit"), and Individuals will no longer have a pressing need to 
establish a constituency within the DNSO when they can have their own ALSO 
that will elect a minimum of six Board directors.   The Intellectual Property 
Constituency will have no difficulty settling upon a Standing Committee 
structure (comparable to the GAC), and the ISPs will simply have to decide 
whether they represent User interests or whether they are in fact to be 
positioned among the providers.  No one will be left in the DNSO after this 
transition.   The DNSO is effectively dead.

We are facing a new future.  You are welcome to spend your time clinging to 
the processes of the past, promoting motions and bringing pressing issues to 
the floor... but these actions will be overshadowed by the dynamic 
environment.  Very soon (in six weeks), the ICANN Board will act on the 
recommendations of the ALSC -- and nowhere in their report do they discuss 
the role of the General Assembly.  

Together with Roberto I have spent all my time in Montevideo lobbying members 
of the Board, and others with influence, for the continued existence of the 
concept of the "Open Forum" as an integral part of ICANN structure.   We 
might be able to preserve a General Assembly; we most likely will not be able 
to reform or restructure the DNSO -- all attempts thus far have been met with 
opposition by the Council, and most of its current constituent members now 
have even more favorable options awaiting (in the restructuring of ICANN that 
will be forthcoming).

As I see it, your choices are limited -- you may either provide substantive 
input to the ALSC prior to their 26 October working deadline (thereby helping 
to shape the decisions that will emerge), or you can go about your 
business-as-usual and await the decisions that will be foisted upon you.  I 
prefer to become involved in the process to determine our own future.   

Paralysis occurs when one is not willing to accept evolutionary momentum.   
Change is on the horizon... the type of change will in part be dictated by 
your contribution (or lack thereof) to this effort.  I encourage you to 
thoroughly read the ALSC and NAIS documents and assist in arriving at a 
consensus determination.  We have only a little more than a month to submit 
our recommendations, observations, and suggestions for improvement.  The 
Board will act with or without your involvement; they have a duty to 
safeguard the best interests of the Corporation -- it is up to you as a 
participant in the ICANN process to offer advise on the best path forward.  I 
hope that you will share your views.  The continued existence of the Assembly 
may well depend upon it.

- --
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, 22 Sep 2001 23:13:13 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  destroyer of the GA/ Intentional?

[email-masked] wrote:

> We have only a little more than a month to submit
> our recommendations, observations, and suggestions for improvement.  The
> Board will act with or without your involvement; they have a duty to
> safeguard the best interests of the Corporation -- it is up to you as a
> participant in the ICANN process to offer advise on the best path forward.  I
> hope that you will share your views.  The continued existence of the Assembly
> may well depend upon it.

This pretty much sums it all up.  Let's get to work volks.

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: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 23:31:17 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Restructuring Working Group

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Danny and all stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
> > 03.  providing financial assistance to users --
> > "(Any e-mail address holder can acquire a domain name at minimal cost, but
> > with some effort. To help ensure that this is not an impediment to those who
> > want a domain name and want to be an At-Large member, the ALSC suggests that
> > the ICANN community identify and encourage organizations that could provide
> > appropriate assistance to such users.)"  "To help ensure that this approach
> > to At-Large membership is not an impediment to those who want a domain name
> > and want to participate in an ALSO, the ALSC suggests that the ICANN
> > community identify and encourage organizations that could provide appropriate
> > assistance to such users. We encourage input on this and hope to include
> > specific suggestions and named institutions in our final report."
>
>   This is of course pure political nonsense and is being used as a method of
> excluding those stakeholders that are not and do not wish to be Domain Name
> holders/owners yet are contributors to the internet in any number of already
> well known ways...

Jeff et al.

What you say is true, there are many who contribute to the Net but do not hold
domains.  However, what we are talking about here in the General Assembly of the
Domain Name Supporting Organization are subjects that pertain to the Internet
Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers.  I wish to draw attention to the term
"assigned".  Assignation involves responsibility.  IMHO, it is reasonable to expect
that one responsibility of all `assignees' is to fulfil certain basic qualification
requirements.

Look at it this way, in order to vote in America, one needs be a citizen.  How many
non-citizens are there currently living and working in the United States?  Surely
obtaining the 'rights and responsibilities' of 'assignation' is a whole lot easier in
an ALSO based on domain qualification, than becoming an American citizen is in the
real world?

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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:51:27 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA Chair

I'd like to renew my request to the Names Council to ask them to
consider, at their next meeting, a recall of their appointment of
Danny Younger as the DNSO GA Chair, and request that they schedule a
new nomination and election process to be started to fill that
position with someone who can be effective in that role.

Thank you for your consideration.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:11:58 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  destroyer of the GA/ Intentional?

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 6:09 PM
|> 
|> Thank you for expressing your concerns.  I too have some 
|> concerns that I 
|> would like to share with you...  

O'boy, I go away for a few weeks ...

|> When the ICANN organization contemplates a new structure 
|> that only calls for 
|> Supporting Organizations for providers, developers, and users, the 
|> probability of the continued existence of the DNSO is either 
|> slim or none (and by my estimation, Slim has already left town).  

The DNSO, as currently structured, is a canard anyway. BTW, Excellent
analysis. I appreciate the summary, since I now have to catch back up.

|> When registries and registrars are promised their own SO 
|> with the right to 
|> elect their own Board members, they have no need for 
|> continued participation 
|> in a dysfunctional  DNSO (they are quite comfortable routing 
|> around this point of failure anyway).  

Registrars aren't registries, however much they may want to be.

|> Members of the Non-Commercial constituency have 
|> articulated that they see no need to attempt to raise the 
|> $30,000 in dues 
|> owed to the DNSO because they no longer expect it to 
|> survive.  

They may be correct. However, if the DNSO was stronger, they wouldn't have
paid anyway. Whom are they trying to kid? They simply don't have the money.
Actually, they can get it. But, with so many distructful people watching the
cash drawer ... it doesn't dare move. But, that's all beside the point.
Menbers of the DNSO shouldn't be funding the DNSO, that's what a levy on DNS
registrations is supposed to be for.

|> The ccTLDs 
|> have already indicated that they will no longer support the 
|> DNSO past the end of its fiscal year and expect to have their own SO. 

That's probably how it should have been from the start. But, to be honest, I
see no difference betwween them and any other registry. They should all be
treated the same. Registrars are a different story. There are producers and
there are re-sellers, registrars are re-sellers. They are parasites, not
producers.

|> The Business 
|> Constituency is already attempting to position itself on the 
|> provider side of 
|> the equation (much to the consternation of other providers 
|> that do not see such a "fit"),

That's good, because I don't see such a fit either. The BC are consumers,
unless they're *SPs (ASP, ISP, BSP, et al).

|> and Individuals will no longer have a pressing need to 
|> establish a constituency within the DNSO when they can have 
|> their own ALSO that will elect a minimum of six Board directors.  

DNS owners and end-users are the same thing?!?! Since when? This is getting
very patronistic here (Not you Danny ... the concept).

|> The Intellectual Property 
|> Constituency will have no difficulty settling upon a 
|> Standing Committee 
|> structure (comparable to the GAC), 

If we can get rid of the UDRP, I might buy it. However, we can't so I wont.
Resist WIPO at every turn. They are NOT your friends.

|> and the ISPs will simply have to decide 
|> whether they represent User interests or whether they are in 
|> fact to be  positioned among the providers.  

After what I've been through, in the past six months, the ISPs definitely do
NOT have end-user interests at heart. In case anyone hadn't noticed, there's
massive M&A activity going on there (more of a consolidation, actually). I
predict that the Bells will win, in the end. The Bells (RBOCs) are notorious
for poor end-user representation. In fact, they abuse users at every
opportunity. See your local Public Utilities Commision for proof.

|> No one will be left in the DNSO after this 
|> transition.   The DNSO is effectively dead.

You may be correct.

|> We are facing a new future.  You are welcome to spend your 
|> time clinging to 
|> the processes of the past, promoting motions and bringing 
|> pressing issues to 
|> the floor... but these actions will be overshadowed by the dynamic 
|> environment.  Very soon (in six weeks), the ICANN Board will 
|> act on the 
|> recommendations of the ALSC -- and nowhere in their report 
|> do they discuss the role of the General Assembly.  

The GA was only a sop to the ex-IFWP folks anyway. It has no power and might
as well not exist.

|> Together with Roberto I have spent all my time in Montevideo 
|> lobbying members 
|> of the Board, and others with influence, for the continued 
|> existence of the 
|> concept of the "Open Forum" as an integral part of ICANN 
|> structure.   We 
|> might be able to preserve a General Assembly; we most likely 
|> will not be able 
|> to reform or restructure the DNSO -- all attempts thus far 
|> have been met with 
|> opposition by the Council, and most of its current 
|> constituent members now 
|> have even more favorable options awaiting (in the 
|> restructuring of ICANN that 
|> will be forthcoming).

I have always maintained that the DNSO NC was the DNSO's worst enemy. I was
there when they formed the DNSO. It was a railroad job then and it's a
railroad job now. Tell me what's changed?

|> As I see it, your choices are limited -- you may either 
|> provide substantive 
|> input to the ALSC prior to their 26 October working deadline 

Yes, input that will be properly filed, posted, and ignored.

|> (thereby helping to shape the decisions that will emerge), 

feh, you're having a nice dream.

|> or you can go about your 
|> business-as-usual and await the decisions that will be 
|> foisted upon you.  

Which is what will happen anyway.

|> I prefer to become involved in the process to determine our 
|> own future.   

Just what makes you think that your input will be weighed? Having been
through this at least twice, all that will happen is that you will burn time
you could have spent more profitably elsewhere.

|> I hope that you will share your views.  The continued 
|> existence of the Assembly may well depend upon it.

As I said, the GA is a canard. It's continued powerless existance is an
insult. It should either gain power or die. After all these years, I don't
see the ICANN BoD suddenly giving the GA any power, do you ... honestly?

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:14:07 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Chair

William, I can't believe that your still going on about this. As if it
mattered.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:51 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] GA Chair
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> I'd like to renew my request to the Names Council to ask them to
|> consider, at their next meeting, a recall of their appointment of
|> Danny Younger as the DNSO GA Chair, and request that they schedule a
|> new nomination and election process to be started to fill that
|> position with someone who can be effective in that role.
|> 
|> Thank you for your consideration.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Best regards,
|> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
|> Userfriendly.com Domains
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:35:22 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA Chair

Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:14:07 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> William, I can't believe that your still going on about this. As if it
> mattered.

If does, at least to those of us who don't believe that "DNSO, as
currently structured, is a canard anyway" as you said in another
message tonight.  Perhaps it is ok for the DNSO GA to have a complete
lack of leadership by its chair, since you see the DNSO in such a
light, but those of us who don't deserve much better from a chair.

- -- 
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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:38:49 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] GA Chair

Those whom may wonder at the lack of my usual optimizm may see
http://www.mhsc.com/news.htm.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 1:35 AM
|> To: Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA Chair
|> 
|> 
|> Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:14:07 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > William, I can't believe that your still going on about 
|> this. As if it
|> > mattered.
|> 
|> If does, at least to those of us who don't believe that "DNSO, as
|> currently structured, is a canard anyway" as you said in another
|> message tonight.  Perhaps it is ok for the DNSO GA to have a complete
|> lack of leadership by its chair, since you see the DNSO in such a
|> light, but those of us who don't deserve much better from a chair.
|> 
|> -- 
|> 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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:49:51 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] GA Chair

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 1:35 AM
|> 
|> Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:14:07 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > William, I can't believe that your still going on about 
|> this. As if it
|> > mattered.
|> 
|> If does, at least to those of us who don't believe that "DNSO, as
|> currently structured, is a canard anyway" as you said in another
|> message tonight.  Perhaps it is ok for the DNSO GA to have a complete
|> lack of leadership by its chair, since you see the DNSO in such a
|> light, but those of us who don't deserve much better from a chair.

Your alternative perspective on the DNSO elephant, doesn't make it less of
an elephant.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:57:06 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:38:49 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Those whom may wonder at the lack of my usual optimizm may see
> http://www.mhsc.com/news.htm.

None of which has anything to do with your feelings about the DNSO
which predate the 11th.  My point is that your anti-DNSO anti-ICANN
predisposition makes the lack of leadership in the GA something that
is really not that important to you, and hence why you feel it is
a non-issue.

- -- 
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: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 02:06:40 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] GA Chair

Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:49:51 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

|>> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|>> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 1:35 AM
|>> 
|>> Sunday, Sunday, September 23, 2001, 1:14:07 AM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|>> 
|>> > William, I can't believe that your still going on about 
|>> this. As if it
|>> > mattered.
|>> 
|>> If does, at least to those of us who don't believe that "DNSO, as
|>> currently structured, is a canard anyway" as you said in another
|>> message tonight.  Perhaps it is ok for the DNSO GA to have a complete
|>> lack of leadership by its chair, since you see the DNSO in such a
|>> light, but those of us who don't deserve much better from a chair.

> Your alternative perspective on the DNSO elephant, doesn't make it less of
> an elephant.

As your perspective that it an elephant doesn't mean that lack of
leadership in the Chair is, or should be acceptable.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #754
************************