Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #766
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, September 30 2001          Volume 01 : Number 766

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 00:34:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

Dave and all assembly members,

  As we [INEGroup] had predicted, this task force, and I personally suspect
the rest of them is just another white wash exercise for the purposes of
selective censorship and self aggrandizement.

  And the saga continues....

DPF wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 15:33:33 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >There is no "Task Force".  There is only a slick effort on the part of Phil
> >Sheppard to deny you your rights.  If you choose to remain complacent about
> >it, that is your prerogative.  I, for one, intend to raise my voice.
>
> I didn't say I disagreed with your conclusions, just commented that a
> frontal attack isn't always the best way to achieve one's goals.
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
>

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, 29 Sep 2001 23:22:01 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Check out these two threads.  I think that we are boiling down to how to oppose
the BoD and Staff and not about what we oppose.  I suggest a two pronged
attack.  Sometimes you can follow me and my antisocial behavior and sometimes
you can follow pleasant well worn tactics such as David suggests are
appropriate.  I have more reason to hate litigation than most and with that
thought I suggest we use the other Estate and we use this horrible state of
affairs to our favor and invoke the press.

I did not make the rules.  I do not like the game.  But damn it, it is time we
started playing it like the BoD and Staff and Verisign.  Let us stop acting like
a professional group above the rules and get down and dirty and win.  WOW what a
group this is!  When I start ticking of our reservoir of talent, skill,
education and passion I find no better or more important think tank in the world
- - ever.  Just start with Judith and Ellen, then move through with Roberto and
Jefsey, switch to William and Michael, Joanna and Jeff, Roeland, David, Bret and
all the names in between closing with Karl, Milton, Sotiris and Danny.  All we
lack is the clear focus and singleness of purpose to achieve true global
representativeness.

Now I am seeing the sub lists as a possible source of benefit.  development of
position papers to be streamlined into the media.  Not consensus based but just
a place where the geniuses can write a position and someone has a list of
interested media outlets and gets it out.  Look we are hamstrung by consensus
and yet the BoD and Staff rule by fiat.  Lets start using their model and just
publish, lets start declaring truth not arriving at it.

Just some ideas,
Eric

Jeff wrote:
Dave and all assembly members,

  As we [INEGroup] had predicted, this task force, and I personally suspect
the rest of them is just another white wash exercise for the purposes of
selective censorship and self aggrandizement.

  And the saga continues....

DPF wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 15:33:33 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >There is no "Task Force".  There is only a slick effort on the part of Phil
> >Sheppard to deny you your rights.  If you choose to remain complacent about
> >it, that is your prerogative.  I, for one, intend to raise my voice.
>
> I didn't say I disagreed with your conclusions, just commented that a
> frontal attack isn't always the best way to achieve one's goals.
>
> DPF
> --
Roeland Meyer wrote:

> If that's the sort of stuff they are going to talk about then the MdR
> meeting has no value-add for MHSC. If they are going to go into competition
> with MHSC security services, then I have even more reason to stop
> contribution to the ICANN process. If they are even going to think that they
> can tell MHSC not to sell and run our zone servers then thay can PUAR and
> show us the court order, and Sexton can be thankful that he's in Toronto. If
> they're going to try and restrict distribution of the root zone file then
> our FOIA papers are already filled out, since I've been expecting that move
> for some time now.

- --
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, 30 Sep 2001 10:29:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

Rick H Wesson wrote in two recent messages:
- ---
in the US, as there will be no meetings in the USA next year. I also feel
ICANN, its staff, and the constituencies are illequiped to discuss
security or stability with over 78% of .COM zones misconfigured [1]
...
[1] http://www.miceandmen.com/6000/61_recent_survey.html
- ---

- ---
If registrars could effect the functionality of zones under .COM then I
might expect them to do some of the things you enumerate below. the
problem is that 78% of all .COM delegations are in some way misconfigured.

I don't understand why a resources mostly utilized for speculative
purposes should become secured, and if most domains are screwed up in some
way what makes you think the resonsible party for the domain is competent
to implement any of your suggested security features?
- ---

How true.

I cannot believe my eyes to see someone is eventually writing
about Mice and Men reports, and pointing out how bad the situation is.

Furthermore adding that anyway, nobody cares, because it is
"mostly utilized for speculative purposes".

Yes, indeed.

It explains extremelly well many problems we have.

On the one hand, the new open gTLD are like a game, like a lottery,
on which the world patrimony in words (used in real life to describe
our world) is sold out to the speculators during "sunrise".
On the other, the real companies and people, who feel the words
have meaning and sense, and that there is a reality behind.

Is ICANN a technical coordination body taking care about quality of network ?
Or is ICANN rather running a casino of "sunrise" games ?

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
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, 30 Sep 2001 04:42:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] We can't be against it?

Eric and all assembly members,

  Some good ideas here Eric.  And some of it can be done.  We would
need funding however.  (More specific comments to eric's below)

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Check out these two threads.  I think that we are boiling down to how to oppose
> the BoD and Staff and not about what we oppose.

  I do believe that what is being opposed is Stuart Lynn's seemingly independent
decision on the upcoming MDR meeting being focused only or predominantly
on security issues for the DNS.  I believe that much is quite clear.  So, I
am a bit puzzled with you comment here.

> I suggest a two pronged
> attack.  Sometimes you can follow me and my antisocial behavior and sometimes
> you can follow pleasant well worn tactics such as David suggests are
> appropriate.  I have more reason to hate litigation than most and with that
> thought I suggest we use the other Estate and we use this horrible state of
> affairs to our favor and invoke the press.

  THe press as you know, starting with Techweb and CNET are already
out front to and extent here.  More to soon come on this issue I am sure.
See: http://www.internetweek.com/graymatter/bits092101.htm for example.

>
>
> I did not make the rules.  I do not like the game.  But damn it, it is time we
> started playing it like the BoD and Staff and Verisign.  Let us stop acting like
> a professional group above the rules and get down and dirty and win.

  It is not all about wining or loosing.  It is about doing the right thing for the
right reasons at the right time.  What Stuart Lynn has suggest does not
meet the criteria.  We and hopefully the press will help, need to make
that case.

>  WOW what a
> group this is!  When I start ticking of our reservoir of talent, skill,
> education and passion I find no better or more important think tank in the world
> - ever.  Just start with Judith and Ellen, then move through with Roberto and
> Jefsey, switch to William and Michael, Joanna and Jeff, Roeland, David, Bret and
> all the names in between closing with Karl, Milton, Sotiris and Danny.  All we
> lack is the clear focus and singleness of purpose to achieve true global
> representativeness.

  Agreed here!  As you know Eric, the ICANN BoD and staff have purposefully
blocked any attempts by which this can be achieved, although they are
mandated by way of the White Paper and the MoU with DOC/NTIA
to do so.

>
>
> Now I am seeing the sub lists as a possible source of benefit.

  THe "Sublists" would only and have only served thus far to divide
not to unite...

> development of
> position papers to be streamlined into the media.  Not consensus based but just
> a place where the geniuses can write a position and someone has a list of
> interested media outlets and gets it out.  Look we are hamstrung by consensus
> and yet the BoD and Staff rule by fiat.  Lets start using their model and just
> publish, lets start declaring truth not arriving at it.

  Good idea here.  Get started Eric!  >;)

>
>
> Just some ideas,
> Eric
>
> Jeff wrote:
> Dave and all assembly members,
>
>   As we [INEGroup] had predicted, this task force, and I personally suspect
> the rest of them is just another white wash exercise for the purposes of
> selective censorship and self aggrandizement.
>
>   And the saga continues....
>
> DPF wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 15:33:33 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > >There is no "Task Force".  There is only a slick effort on the part of Phil
> > >Sheppard to deny you your rights.  If you choose to remain complacent about
> > >it, that is your prerogative.  I, for one, intend to raise my voice.
> >
> > I didn't say I disagreed with your conclusions, just commented that a
> > frontal attack isn't always the best way to achieve one's goals.
> >
> > DPF
> > --
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > If that's the sort of stuff they are going to talk about then the MdR
> > meeting has no value-add for MHSC. If they are going to go into competition
> > with MHSC security services, then I have even more reason to stop
> > contribution to the ICANN process. If they are even going to think that they
> > can tell MHSC not to sell and run our zone servers then thay can PUAR and
> > show us the court order, and Sexton can be thankful that he's in Toronto. If
> > they're going to try and restrict distribution of the root zone file then
> > our FOIA papers are already filled out, since I've been expecting that move
> > for some time now.
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:26:31 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

At 16:25 30/09/01 +1200, DPF wrote:
>On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 15:33:33 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >There is no "Task Force".  There is only a slick effort on the part of Phil
> >Sheppard to deny you your rights.  If you choose to remain complacent about
> >it, that is your prerogative.  I, for one, intend to raise my voice.
>
>I didn't say I disagreed with your conclusions, just commented that a
>frontal attack isn't always the best way to achieve one's goals.

David,

I used to say that to Michael Sondow. :-)
But after three years, the frustration boils over and not mincing words at 
least gives a good indication where one stands.
It would be good for your credibility if you also expressed yourself 
clearer than :"I didn't say I disagreed".

Now I have got that off my chest, may I please ask Danny once more to start 
acting as a real chair and provide a proper and constructive channel for 
the pent-up frustration, resulting in a well argued consensus document that 
addresses the BS hurdles one more and final time?

- --Joop

- --
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, 30 Sep 2001 04:34:38 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Review Task Force report

Saturday, Saturday, September 29, 2001, 10:26:31 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Now I have got that off my chest, may I please ask Danny once more to start 
> acting as a real chair

According to him he is acting like a real chair.

His position is that the Chair position is nothing but a bully pulpit,
and that those who voted for him wanted it that way.

- -- 
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, 30 Sep 2001 08:18:40 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] New Order

So here are the sub lists.  All the chair need do is appoint a chair for
each one and a press secretary for each one.  The chair writes (or
anyone else) a piece coming from the GA side and the secretary makes
sure that it is distributed to a list of media outlets.  Make it
philosophical and humanistic like I tend to write and those interested
will pick it up, make it technical and those will pick it up.  This
ain't rocket scientry it is just action and action speaks louder than
words.

{when you want something you have never had before you must try
something you have never tried before in order to achieve it}  I want
this group and my dotcommoners to have a voice and I want that voice to
be heard and I trust this fine body to do well for my children and all
of the have nots.

Sincerely, from this side of the great divide,
Eric

     GA Specific Purposes Lists, setup on 30 April 2001, modifications
in list names on 21 May 2001. ga-org added 7 June 2001.

        1.http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-icann/Arc00/, (former
ga-ext), External Relationships
        2.http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-rules/Arc00/, (former
ga-int), Internal Processes
        3.http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/, Systems
        4.http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/, Competitive
Roots
        5.http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-udrp/Arc00/, (former ga-tm),
Trade Marks-IP
        6.http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-review/Arc00/, GA DNSO
Review
        7.http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-org/Arc00/, Dot org referral
- --
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, 30 Sep 2001 08:26:48 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

I resound as our Chairs' worst critic.  However I lost an election to him and am
entitled.  I also am learned enough to know that each chair will have their own
style.  I also believe that he probably has his hands full dealing with the
idiots on the upper level of this here food chain, and the fact we still exist
speaks quite well for Danny.

Now if he can step up to the plate and give us a voice in these turbulent times I
will be most proud to have even known him.

First and foremost is our need for the At Large.  As always I remain our chairs'
servant.

Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, September 29, 2001, 10:26:31 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > Now I have got that off my chest, may I please ask Danny once more to start
> > acting as a real chair
>
> According to him he is acting like a real chair.
>
> His position is that the Chair position is nothing but a bully pulpit,
> and that those who voted for him wanted it that way.

- --
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, 30 Sep 2001 13:06:25 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

Note:  this draft is being circulated for public comment.  This will not 
represent a consensus document from the General Assembly until its members 
have ratified it.  

General Assembly Position Paper on the DNSO:

Members of the General Assembly are committed to the mission of ICANN and 
have actively participated in discussions regarding its future 
reorganization.  This involvement has manifested itself through contributions 
to the At-Large Study Committee Forum, dialogue on the General Assembly 
lists, participation in ALSC Outreach sessions, discussion at plenary 
sessions, and involvement in the independent efforts of groups such as NAIS 
and the Interim Coordinating Committee.  

We believe that in view of the clearly-documented community consensus, the 
At-Large Study Committee will re-assess its preliminary conclusions, and will 
re-visit its decision to break our compact with the US government and elect 
less than the requisite number of At-Large Directors promised.  

In principle, we support a reorganization of ICANN along functional lines, 
and see merit in a structure that enables participation for users, providers, 
and developers.  Once the user community is invested with a participatory 
structure and begins the process of electing its nine representative 
Directors to the ICANN Board, it will be necessary to assess the proper 
distribution of remaining Board seats.

We agree with the assessment of the ALSC that the ASO and PSO, in general, 
seem to be functioning well, and submit that there would be no apparent 
justification for any changes either in their structure or in their degree of 
representation on the Board.

At issue is the disposition of the three remaining Board seats.  As we 
support the concept of a Supporting Organization for Providers, the 
implication is clear - the DNSO, which to date has aptly been characterized 
as dysfunctional, must be decommissioned. 

While it can be expected that those constituencies that have entered into 
contractual relationships with ICANN (the gTLDs, the ccTLDs, and the 
registrars), will form the Provider Supporting Organization, it is evident 
that such a restructuring raises questions as to the means for continued 
participation by others that have been loyal to the ICANN mission.

The General Assembly believes than no constituent element in the ICANN 
process should be disenfranchised in this restructuring.  

Accordingly, we propose to the ICANN Board that the concept of the Open 
Public Forum, the General Assembly, wherein all constituent groups may have a 
voice and an opportunity to substantively address mutual concerns, be 
retained.   

The General Assembly will provide a venue for cross-SO dialogue, thereby 
preserving the consensus-building efforts that are the cornerstone of the 
ICANN process.

We encourage the ICANN Board to direct the Names Council to "wrap up its 
affairs" and to pass the mantle of leadership to the General Assembly.  The 
Assembly will facilitate this transition by undertaking those committee and 
task force projects started by the Council, and will bring them to conclusion 
in a thoughtful and timely fashion.  

- --
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, 30 Sep 2001 11:41:26 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

Iff you think that this will make a difference then we have all been kidding
ourselves. The evidence is clear, that the BoD never intended the DNSO to
succeed. The members of the IFWP should never have accepted this structure.
But, hindsight is 20/20. The lessons learned were interesting.

It appears that Stef was right (those years ago), the DNSO was only a forum
where the ICANN could harmlessly contain those of us here, whilst parading
us to the DoC as evidence of broad community support and consensus, for
their own different agenda. IOW, we lent the ICANN our credibility whilst we
allowed ICANN to pen us up in a box, like Chinese crickets.

Now, I'm one of the few that realized this upfront, but I didn't want to
commit Patrick Henry's error. Besides, someone had to monitor what was going
on here. Who knows, it might have actually done something.

Barring some rather radical legislation from DC, the ICANN is pretty
harmless. The key to the ICANN web-of-contracts is not to buy into any part
of it in the first place. NewNet is showing us that. Specifically, I don't
believe that it is a binding point, that a contract can specify with whom a
legal entity can have legal business relations, for legally allowed business
transactiuons. The best that can be done is to use it as an escape clause
for contract breach action. Evenso, it may not be binding, under all US law
and jurisdictions. Just because it is written, doesn't mean that it is
legally binding, especially in civil law (IANAL, but why else have
separation clauses in contracts). Of ALL the registrars, some are slutty
enough to take registrations from anyone. When was the last time a registrar
lost their license, or even got suspended?

The only good thing that happened is that new TLDs were introduced and a lot
of D'Crock's crock (FUD) was proven to be disingenuous (Crispin is
irrelevent). More importantly, many are now innoculated against that FUD and
inclusive root operators cannot now be charged with doing something
technically dangerous or legally libelous. Compared to three years ago, this
is a radical improvement in concept and such rhetoric now has very small
chance of being effective. I'll take that as a win for all of us, thank you.

It doesn't matter that some of these ICANN registries have mattresses tied
to their back and are advertising curb-side service (actually, it does, from
another POV<g>). The point being that, new TLDs are now technically and
legally acceptable. It doesn't matter whom is doing them ... or how. Special
imprimature, or dispensation, from theICANN<tm>, not required. All that
remains is for those markets to prove themselves.

The ICANN is now trying to become something it was never intended to be. I
expect that the DoC will not interfere with that, or even pay much
attention. The current US Administration seems to have its hands full with
larger issues. Those of us interested in freedom and individual-rights
should also be expending more effort in that area and a little less on
relative irrelevencies, such as what the ICANN has become or is about to
become.

FWIW, while MHSC attended last years MdR meeting, our business plans have
changed (yet again) and ICANN has become a fading blip on our RADAR screen.
My partners have always questioned my sanity in this endeavour anyway. They
didn't see the ROI. Frankly, I didn't either, but I cared. I can no longer
afford to care and neither can MHSC. I may pop in now and again, but my
primary focus will be elsewhere. MHSC may do something more with DNSO.NET or
it may not. We will see. ROOT-SERVICE.NET will remain in operation, to
support our other activities.

- --
IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I
say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 10:06 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration
|> 
|> 
|> Note:  this draft is being circulated for public comment.  
|> This will not 
|> represent a consensus document from the General Assembly 
|> until its members 
|> have ratified it.  
|> 
|> General Assembly Position Paper on the DNSO:
|> 
|> Members of the General Assembly are committed to the mission 
|> of ICANN and 
|> have actively participated in discussions regarding its future 
|> reorganization.  This involvement has manifested itself 
|> through contributions 
|> to the At-Large Study Committee Forum, dialogue on the 
|> General Assembly 
|> lists, participation in ALSC Outreach sessions, discussion 
|> at plenary 
|> sessions, and involvement in the independent efforts of 
|> groups such as NAIS 
|> and the Interim Coordinating Committee.  
|> 
|> We believe that in view of the clearly-documented community 
|> consensus, the 
|> At-Large Study Committee will re-assess its preliminary 
|> conclusions, and will 
|> re-visit its decision to break our compact with the US 
|> government and elect 
|> less than the requisite number of At-Large Directors promised.  
|> 
|> In principle, we support a reorganization of ICANN along 
|> functional lines, 
|> and see merit in a structure that enables participation for 
|> users, providers, 
|> and developers.  Once the user community is invested with a 
|> participatory 
|> structure and begins the process of electing its nine representative 
|> Directors to the ICANN Board, it will be necessary to assess 
|> the proper 
|> distribution of remaining Board seats.
|> 
|> We agree with the assessment of the ALSC that the ASO and 
|> PSO, in general, 
|> seem to be functioning well, and submit that there would be 
|> no apparent 
|> justification for any changes either in their structure or 
|> in their degree of 
|> representation on the Board.
|> 
|> At issue is the disposition of the three remaining Board 
|> seats.  As we 
|> support the concept of a Supporting Organization for Providers, the 
|> implication is clear - the DNSO, which to date has aptly 
|> been characterized 
|> as dysfunctional, must be decommissioned. 
|> 
|> While it can be expected that those constituencies that have 
|> entered into 
|> contractual relationships with ICANN (the gTLDs, the ccTLDs, and the 
|> registrars), will form the Provider Supporting Organization, 
|> it is evident 
|> that such a restructuring raises questions as to the means 
|> for continued 
|> participation by others that have been loyal to the ICANN mission.
|> 
|> The General Assembly believes than no constituent element in 
|> the ICANN 
|> process should be disenfranchised in this restructuring.  
|> 
|> Accordingly, we propose to the ICANN Board that the concept 
|> of the Open 
|> Public Forum, the General Assembly, wherein all constituent 
|> groups may have a 
|> voice and an opportunity to substantively address mutual 
|> concerns, be 
|> retained.   
|> 
|> The General Assembly will provide a venue for cross-SO 
|> dialogue, thereby 
|> preserving the consensus-building efforts that are the 
|> cornerstone of the 
|> ICANN process.
|> 
|> We encourage the ICANN Board to direct the Names Council to 
|> "wrap up its 
|> affairs" and to pass the mantle of leadership to the General 
|> Assembly.  The 
|> Assembly will facilitate this transition by undertaking 
|> those committee and 
|> task force projects started by the Council, and will bring 
|> them to conclusion 
|> in a thoughtful and timely fashion.  
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> 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, 30 Sep 2001 14:59:59 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Note:  this draft is being circulated for public comment.  This will not
> represent a consensus document from the General Assembly until its members
> have ratified it.

I'm told that in Quaker (Society of Friends) meetings, some comments are
preceeded with "Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world, but though
art standing where I am about to shoot." That applies here.

I'm in sympathy with your overall feeling, but am going to be as tough as I
can manage in attacking your text. Nothing personal.

> General Assembly Position Paper on the DNSO:
> 
> Members of the General Assembly are committed to the mission of ICANN

Many are, no doubt, but I don't think it is at all clear that your general
statement is warranted. If you define ICANN's mission to include the task
of protecting trademarks, I certainly have serious doubts. Others here run
alternate roots and would no doubt fail to support a 'mission' that includes
putting them out of business.

Without a better definition of ICANN's mission (perhaps a reference to
an appropriate document?), your statement above is a meaningless and
annoying platitude. 

> and have actively participated in discussions regarding its future
> reorganization.  This involvement has manifested itself through contributions
> to the At-Large Study Committee Forum, dialogue on the General Assembly
> lists, participation in ALSC Outreach sessions, discussion at plenary
> sessions, and involvement in the independent efforts of groups such as NAIS
> and the Interim Coordinating Committee.

Yes, we talk a lot and in varied forums. Mentioning that here seems pointless.
 
> We believe that in view of the clearly-documented

Please provide a URL or other reference for the documentation you refer to.
Without that, your claim is meaningless.

> community consensus,

Please explain how you are using the terms 'community' and 'consensus'.

Both can be 'weasel words', defined at the speakers convenience to
support whatever position he or she chooses. I am not accusing you of
this, but the tactic is common enough in these discussions that clear
definitions are required from anyone who hopes to be taken seriously.

> the At-Large Study Committee will re-assess its preliminary conclusions,
> and will re-visit its decision

Will? I'd say 'should', or perhaps 'must'.

> to break our compact with the US government

This needs backing up, a demonstration that changing this number violates
the principles on which ICANN was founded, and assurances given to the US
gov't at the time.

One possibility is Dyson's 1998 letter assuring NTIA of ICANN's excellent
intentions:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/ICANN111098.htm

" ... elect the nine At Large Directors. ... the Board has an unconditional
    mandate to create a membership structure that will elect the At Large 
    Directors of the Board

" ... the Board, which will consist of the elected representatives of the
      entire Internet community

" Esther Dyson 
" Interim Chairman 
" On Behalf of the ICANN Board 

> and elect less than the requisite number of At-Large Directors promised.

'requisite' and 'promised' also need backing up.

> In principle, we support a reorganization of ICANN along functional lines,

I'm not sure I do support that. In any case, methinks discussions of how
to re-organise are out of order until after we've got 9 At Large directors
actually seated. 

> and see merit in a structure that enables participation for users, providers,
> and developers.

Yes.

> Once the user community is invested with a participatory
> structure and begins the process of electing its nine representative
> Directors to the ICANN Board, it will be necessary to assess the proper
> distribution of remaining Board seats.

No. Not until the nine are actually seated.
 
> We agree with the assessment of the ALSC that the ASO and PSO, in general,
> seem to be functioning well, and submit that there would be no apparent
> justification for any changes either in their structure or in their degree of
> representation on the Board.
> 
> At issue is the disposition of the three remaining Board seats.  As we
> support the concept of a Supporting Organization for Providers,

Do you claim there's a consensus on this? What evidence can you provide?
I haven't even seen it discussed, but then I don't read everything.

What about the question of a ccTLD SO? That has certainly been raised,
and I do not think it can be ignored in this context.

> the implication is clear - the DNSO, which to date has aptly been
> characterized as dysfunctional, must be decommissioned.

I don't think that is clear at all. Nor, as a matter of practical
politics, do I think the idea is salable to the present board.

> While it can be expected that those constituencies that have entered into
> contractual relationships with ICANN (the gTLDs, the ccTLDs, and the
> registrars), will form the Provider Supporting Organization, it is evident
> that such a restructuring raises questions as to the means for continued
> participation by others that have been loyal to the ICANN mission.
> 
> The General Assembly believes than no constituent element in the ICANN
> process should be disenfranchised in this restructuring.
> 
> Accordingly, we propose to the ICANN Board that the concept of the Open
> Public Forum, the General Assembly, wherein all constituent groups may have a
> voice and an opportunity to substantively address mutual concerns, be
> retained.
> 
> The General Assembly will provide a venue for cross-SO dialogue, thereby
> preserving the consensus-building efforts that are the cornerstone of the
> ICANN process.

Yes, the GA is necessary for roughly the reasons you state. However, that
is more-or-less irrelevant here. The main question has nothing to do with
the assembly. 

The question should be how to elect nine At Large board members in some
way that can at least hope to approximate fairness of representation and
honesty of implementation, without requiring astronomical expenditure or
asking us to believe in utterly implausible mechanisms.

That is a really hard question. We almost certainly cannot produce a
perfect answer. What we should be working on is producing a tolerable
answer.  

Unfortunately, the process has been subverted. The committee, working
under bogus terms of reference provided by an improperly constituted
board, is trying to foist the notion that reducing the number of At
Large directors both has some relation to solving the problem and has
some chance of achieving 'community consensus'.
(See discussion of 'weasel words' above.)

Methinks what we urgently need as, in your words, "a consensus document
from the General Assembly" is a simple statement that we completely
reject that notion, that we consider half the board as At Large directors
a basic principle. 

> We encourage the ICANN Board to direct the Names Council to "wrap up its
> affairs" and to pass the mantle of leadership to the General Assembly.  The
> Assembly will facilitate this transition by undertaking those committee and
> task force projects started by the Council, and will bring them to conclusion
> in a thoughtful and timely fashion.

We might just as well encourage them all to wear tutus and play bagpipes
at their next meeting. This is about as plausible as your suggestion.

Also, it is about as useful. Granted there are some fine folk and some
good discussions here, do you have any evidence at all that this body
has either the organisation or the leadership for this task?
- --
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, 30 Sep 2001 23:02:15 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Full record of election to ICANN Board by the DNSO in 2001

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

30 September 2001. 

The full record of election to ICANN Board by the DNSO in 2001
has been published in 
http://www.dnso.org/elections/2001.DNSO-ICANN-election-result.html 

The access to this document is provided from the main page,
under "Administration Documents of the Names Council", item
Names Council vote08.

The archives of [email-masked] mailing list are re-open now.

Elisabeth Porteneuve and Glen de Saint Gery
DNSO Secretariat
- --
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, 30 Sep 2001 23:20:27 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Monthly Usage Statistics for www.dnso.org since June 1999

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

30 September 2001. 

The main page of the dnso.org website under "General Information"
includes now a new item "Usage Statistics for www.dnso.org".
The monthly usage statistics have been calculated since June 1999 until 
September 2001, using  Webalizer Version 2.01 software.

The web usage will be updated each month.

Elisabeth Porteneuve and Glen de Saint Gery
DNSO Secretariat
- --
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 #766
************************