Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #767
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, October 1 2001           Volume 01 : Number 767

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:03:25 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

On 19:06 30/09/01, [email-masked] said:
>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.

I am afraid, Danny, that I absolutely oppose that. PSO should only tell 
people the nr of the line their protocol has been recorded in. But mission 
creep is here instead of cross-fertilization catalysis as we observe it. We 
can say that the Internet protocols do not match the Internet architecture 
in term of user autonomy and security. IRT ASO, the lack of education, 
concern and involvement of the Global Internet Community through @large or 
a ASO/GA will probably result in a dramatic situation for real of several 
magnitudes more important that the fake DNS debate. Billions of cost for 
centuries, blocking of the Network, multiple BigBrothers, major innovation 
delays, ...

So what we can say is that @large presence at SO through a GA is of the 
essence. An SO must be conceived as a governance structure with 
participating constituencies, council, GA, Secretariat, MLs, site, etc...

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:39:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Registration data backup? (RE: [ga] We can't be against it?)

On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, at 13:10 [=GMT-0400], Sandy Harris wrote:

> Are servers other than the root a concern? 

Yes, I would think so.

> If so, are they an ICANN
> concern? 

I think the gTLD servers are. Not those of SLDs ('normal' domains). As
for the CCTLDs, it depends on ICANN's authority over those........

> Clearly an accident or an attacker could do considerable
> damage to the net without touching the root -- for example hitting
> the zone servers for .uk, .jp or .org. 

.ORG is (with .COM and .NET) on gtld-servers.net. That set is as good
as the root-servers, spread over the world. Not easy to get all 13
down.

.UK seems to have one nameserver in the US and one in Holland.

.JP gives the impression that they are all inside the country.

Some TLDs are clearly more robust in this respect than others.

> Can and should ICANN require
> RFC 2870 standards for administration of those?
> 
> Do the NSI-run TLDs such as .com live on servers separate from the
> root servers? Should they?

com/net/org are no longer on the root-servers. .edu still is, as well
as .gov. .mil is partly nameserved by the root-servers.

- -- 
[email-masked]

- --
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 16:38:22 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Friends,
>
> Here is a private discussion among friends.  Both Sandy and I may not publish our every
> word to a list but we are men of our word and of course our words should be published if
> they be of value to others.
>
> Make no mistake Sandy is a friend to all dotcommoners and a fine statesmen for the GA.
> The words are always critical and yet supportive.  I think Danny's position has merit.  We
> must get a little proactive here.
>
> Lets throw this over to sys sub list but everyone cc the main lists.  Sandy you be
> chairman and I'll be your secretary.  Let's do it, what have we got to lose?  Any
> objections?  If not us then who?  By monday afternoon we will be in every relevant media
> outlets' inbox.
>
> Let's rock,
>
> Eric
>
> Sandy Harris wrote:
>
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > You sent this off-list, so I'm replying that way. Shouldn't this discussion
> > be on the list? You have my permission to post this if you are so inclined.
> >
> > > Sandy, Friend,
> > >
> > > I am working on your counter position and already note many of your good points.
> > > But rather than just reply could you provide the GA with your own position on these
> > > weighty matters?
> >
> > I've already stated my position in various other posts. Here's the critical part
> > of a rather long post on from the ALSC forum list, my critique of Joe Sims'
> > commemnts on the ALSC report:
> >
> > > In the controversy around Stuart Lynn's recent discussion paper on alternate
> > > roots, ICANN management (quite correctly in my view) claimed that principles
> > > set out in the White Paper and elsewhere were part of ICANN's mandate, and
> > > should be treated as part of existing policy.
> > >
> > > As I see it, the notion of nine At Large directors is another such case.
> > >
> > > See, for example Dyson's 1998 letter assuring IANA of ICANN's excellent
> > > intentions:
> >
> > I blundered there. The letter was to NTIA, not to IANA.
> >
> > > 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 the actual Bylaws attached to that letter have, in Article 9:
> > >
> > > " Each Board after the Initial Board shall be comprised as follows:
> > > "
> > > "   (i) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Address Supporting Organization ...
> > > "  (ii) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Domain Name Supporting Organization,...
> > > " (iii) Three (3) Directors nominated by the Protocol Supporting Organization ...
> > > "  (iv) Nine  (9) At Large Directors, ...
> > > "   (v) The ... President of the Corporation.
> > >
> > > This as much a part of the ICANN mandate as the "there can be only one" notion
> > > about roots that Lynn referred to.
> > >
> > > Methinks the mandate for ALSC is in the bylaws, Article 9:
> > >
> > > " (c) At Large Board members ... shall be elected by a process to be determined
> > > " ... Such process shall call for election of At Large directors by one or more
> > > " categories of members of the Corporation ...
> > >
> > > The problem here is to determine how to elect nine directors. To do that, you
> > > likely have to define "members of the Corporation". Ask Auerbach about that :-)
> > >
> > > I don't think the question of reducing the number of At Large directors should
> > > have arisen, either in the ALSC or the on Board. the Board's mandate is to
> > > implement the bylaws, not to subvert them.

- --
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 19:00:39 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNS securiry info of posible interest

All assembly members or other interested parties,

  The following is a product review that I am NOT hawking but
have tested myself that might have some interest to the security
issues surrounding the most recent discussions on with respect to
Stuart Lynn's recent change in the MDR agenda.
See:  http://www.networkcomputing.com/1205/1205sp5.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 20:27:36 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

I would suggest a re-evaluation of the degree of representation on the
ICANN board (ASO and PSO), especially vis-a-vis the financial
contribution level, and the relative contributions to global Internet
(political) policy.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 5:03 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

On 19:06 30/09/01, [email-masked] said:
>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.

I am afraid, Danny, that I absolutely oppose that. PSO should only tell 
people the nr of the line their protocol has been recorded in. But
mission 
creep is here instead of cross-fertilization catalysis as we observe it.
We 
can say that the Internet protocols do not match the Internet
architecture 
in term of user autonomy and security. IRT ASO, the lack of education, 
concern and involvement of the Global Internet Community through @large
or 
a ASO/GA will probably result in a dramatic situation for real of
several 
magnitudes more important that the fake DNS debate. Billions of cost for

centuries, blocking of the Network, multiple BigBrothers, major
innovation 
delays, ...

So what we can say is that @large presence at SO through a GA is of the 
essence. An SO must be conceived as a governance structure with 
participating constituencies, council, GA, Secretariat, MLs, site,
etc...

Jefsey

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:09:20 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

Proposed amendments and comment:

At 13:06 30/09/01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>Members of the General Assembly are committed to the mission of ICANN and
>have actively participated in discussions regarding its future
>reorganization.

"Most members"

>  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.

"We believe that in view of the clearly-documented community consensus the 
At-Large Study Committee must re-assess its preliminary conclusions, and 
must continue to be guided by the  principle agreed with the DoC, that half 
of the Board be elected by at large members. "

>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.

"Only once the at large directors are seated, can the proper distribution 
of the remaining Board seats be addressed."

>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.
This needs debate.

>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.

This needs debate too.  Personally, I agree with you that it's probably 
inevitable.
In a way, it means and end to ICANN-as-we-know-it  as well. The DNSO was 
constructed as its "consensus" centrepiece. If it goes, a whole new 
architecture is needed.
Everybody in the corridors in Montevideo was already discussing that.

>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.

Frankly, if this GA-of -the-SO's that you propose is going to be of any 
use, ICANN Bylaws will have to be written, that give this body powers to 
elect a mezzanine advisory council. (a la the Names Council but then a 
really functioning one).
This must happen before this GA can gain credibility. (chicken/egg)

>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. Fuzzy enough for everybody to agree with.
Too bad that the reality of the last 3 years has been so different.

>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.

  (this will be welcomed with Homeric laughter)

>  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.

In principle I would support such a move, one that would bring back the 
Working Groups, but once again, can such WG's get moral authority and an 
incentive to do the work, when nobody gives them (top down) real authority?

- --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: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 12:55:34 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Review Task Force report

At 04:34 30/09/01 -0700, "The most advanced domain lookup tool on the 
net"  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.

If this is true, then Danny is acting as a Leader , rather than a Chair. 
This may indeed have been the result of a Chair election, rather than the 
GA accepting an appointed Chair from the NC.
So be it.
Mailing lists are a landscape with multiple bully pulpits and being Chair 
makes little difference.

To help Danny doing his volunteer job, I see merit in Eric's request for 
Danny to appoint sub-list Chairs willing and able to do the job of 
collating disjointed postings into consensus documents and fostering 
compromise between diverging viewpoints.

The GA needs leadership, but it also needs Chairs and procedure to ensure 
that good consensus substance can be produced.

- --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 19:22:37 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Review Task Force report

Sunday, Sunday, September 30, 2001, 5:55:34 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> The GA needs leadership, but it also needs Chairs and procedure to ensure 
> that good consensus substance can be produced.

But that would make the GA viable, another thing that doesn't serve
his personal position.

As long as he is our chair, the GA will remain in the stalemate it has
been in since Roberto's departure.

I've asked the NC intake committee to put replacing Danny on the NC
agenda, perhaps others will do the same.

- -- 
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 19:41:08 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

Mr. Peter,

Your bottom line dollar evaluations are less than satisfactory to us
dotcommoners.  Make a stand if you can and give me six months and I will
double, no triple, your dollar figures.  But make a stand.  Otherwise take
your pencil pushing geeks and go away.  Let me put it another way, put up or
shut up buster.  Those three seats belong to my dotcommoners not a bunch of
ragtag carpet bagging cctld managers masquerading as caring representatives
of my people.  Show some bottom up representativeness or go back to the VI
or wherever you claim to belong to.

If that was rude I truly apologize but I wanted to make sure you understand
that the people own this NET and not any conglomerate of business.  We own
you and not the other way around.

May the abundance of love find itself an adoptive creature on your door
step, and may you spurn other worldly desires and reach and find that love
which is within you.  All of you have happiness within you, please reach out
and find it.

Eric

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I would suggest a re-evaluation of the degree of representation on the
> ICANN board (ASO and PSO), especially vis-a-vis the financial
> contribution level, and the relative contributions to global Internet
> (political) policy.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jefsey
> Morfin
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 5:03 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration
>
> On 19:06 30/09/01, [email-masked] said:
> >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.
>
> I am afraid, Danny, that I absolutely oppose that. PSO should only tell
> people the nr of the line their protocol has been recorded in. But
> mission
> creep is here instead of cross-fertilization catalysis as we observe it.
> We
> can say that the Internet protocols do not match the Internet
> architecture
> in term of user autonomy and security. IRT ASO, the lack of education,
> concern and involvement of the Global Internet Community through @large
> or
> a ASO/GA will probably result in a dramatic situation for real of
> several
> magnitudes more important that the fake DNS debate. Billions of cost for
>
> centuries, blocking of the Network, multiple BigBrothers, major
> innovation
> delays, ...
>
> So what we can say is that @large presence at SO through a GA is of the
> essence. An SO must be conceived as a governance structure with
> participating constituencies, council, GA, Secretariat, MLs, site,
> etc...
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:32:15 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Review Task Force report

At 19:22 30/09/01 -0700, William X Walsh wrote:

>But that would make the GA viable, another thing that doesn't serve
>his personal position.

Such accusations must be substantiated.

>As long as he is our chair, the GA will remain in the stalemate it has
>been in since Roberto's departure.

In the physical GA Danny did allright. Roberto now has the position to do 
something about DNSO review, but results are not showing either.

>I've asked the NC intake committee to put replacing Danny on the NC
>agenda, perhaps others will do the same.

Replacing an elected Chair with an appointed one at this time would be an 
extremely undiplomatic gesture by the NC, serving only to inflame the 
situation more and hastening its own demise.

If there is any replacing to be done, it should come from the bottom up.
Unfortunately, the GA lacks the procedure for it.

- --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 22:52:09 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Position Paper for your consideration

Joop and all assembly members,

  At-Large issues should not be of great issue here with the DNSO
GA or the DNSO as a whole.  Rather those issues should be debated,
as they already have been, again on the ALSC Forum list.

  Although much of Danny's earlier proposed position paper to which
this thread is all about, this really is not the proper forum nor would
any sub-list be a good or even adequate forum to which this should
be decided, discussed, or debated.  Those or us that are potential
or already existing At-Large members would be much better served
and also serve this proposed position paper on the ALSC forum
and direct the discussions to the DOC/NTIA directly as well as the
ICANN BoD.  I have already noticed that Danny has posted this
position paper on the ALSC forum list as well for comment and
discussion there.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Proposed amendments and comment:
>
> At 13:06 30/09/01 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >Members of the General Assembly are committed to the mission of ICANN and
> >have actively participated in discussions regarding its future
> >reorganization.
>
> "Most members"
>
> >  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.
>
> "We believe that in view of the clearly-documented community consensus the
> At-Large Study Committee must re-assess its preliminary conclusions, and
> must continue to be guided by the  principle agreed with the DoC, that half
> of the Board be elected by at large members. "
>
> >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.
>
> "Only once the at large directors are seated, can the proper distribution
> of the remaining Board seats be addressed."
>
> >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.
> This needs debate.
>
> >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.
>
> This needs debate too.  Personally, I agree with you that it's probably
> inevitable.
> In a way, it means and end to ICANN-as-we-know-it  as well. The DNSO was
> constructed as its "consensus" centrepiece. If it goes, a whole new
> architecture is needed.
> Everybody in the corridors in Montevideo was already discussing that.
>
> >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.
>
> Frankly, if this GA-of -the-SO's that you propose is going to be of any
> use, ICANN Bylaws will have to be written, that give this body powers to
> elect a mezzanine advisory council. (a la the Names Council but then a
> really functioning one).
> This must happen before this GA can gain credibility. (chicken/egg)
>
> >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. Fuzzy enough for everybody to agree with.
> Too bad that the reality of the last 3 years has been so different.
>
> >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.
>
>   (this will be welcomed with Homeric laughter)
>
> >  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.
>
> In principle I would support such a move, one that would bring back the
> Working Groups, but once again, can such WG's get moral authority and an
> incentive to do the work, when nobody gives them (top down) real authority?
>
> --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

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 23:46:38 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

I am surprised at how passive you all are being 
about the MdR agenda. 

It is exceedingly interesting that those who know
the most about security (e.g., Rick Wesson) seem
to be least swayed by the demand to drop everything
else and focus on it at an ICANN meeting.

By all means, add it to the agenda. But we need 
a full day of constituency meetings and another,
separate full day for GA and Names Council meetings.
Danny, I would ask you to rescind your request
for a November 12 GA meeting, because it would 
conflict with the ability of ICANN participants to 
attend and work in constituency meetings.

Let the Nov 13 GA meeting add some discussion
of security to its agenda. Probably a two hour
block will be sufficient. 

Let me remind you all that under ICANN's structure,
the President of the Corporation does not have any
control over the agenda of Supporting Organizations.
The Board can ask the DNSO to make policy on things,
and it can pass or not pass policies given to it
by the DNSO, but there is simply no way that the 
Board, let alone the President, can tell us when
we can meet and what we can discuss at our meetings.
The constituencies, the GA, and the Names Council 
can all set their own agendas. 

The only direct control by the President I can see
comes from the corporation's reservation and support
for the rooms. So let us, if necessary, raise the
required money to reserve our own rooms. But before
doing that, let's at least show that we have SOME
backbone and request of ICANN that it make room for
a GA meeting on the 13th. 

- --MM
- --
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 23:56:18 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

I'm with Milton on this.  Please affix my name to the petition.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Milton Mueller wrote:

> I am surprised at how passive you all are being
> about the MdR agenda.
>
> It is exceedingly interesting that those who know
> the most about security (e.g., Rick Wesson) seem
> to be least swayed by the demand to drop everything
> else and focus on it at an ICANN meeting.
>
> By all means, add it to the agenda. But we need
> a full day of constituency meetings and another,
> separate full day for GA and Names Council meetings.
> Danny, I would ask you to rescind your request
> for a November 12 GA meeting, because it would
> conflict with the ability of ICANN participants to
> attend and work in constituency meetings.
>
> Let the Nov 13 GA meeting add some discussion
> of security to its agenda. Probably a two hour
> block will be sufficient.
>
> Let me remind you all that under ICANN's structure,
> the President of the Corporation does not have any
> control over the agenda of Supporting Organizations.
> The Board can ask the DNSO to make policy on things,
> and it can pass or not pass policies given to it
> by the DNSO, but there is simply no way that the
> Board, let alone the President, can tell us when
> we can meet and what we can discuss at our meetings.
> The constituencies, the GA, and the Names Council
> can all set their own agendas.
>
> The only direct control by the President I can see
> comes from the corporation's reservation and support
> for the rooms. So let us, if necessary, raise the
> required money to reserve our own rooms. But before
> doing that, let's at least show that we have SOME
> backbone and request of ICANN that it make room for
> a GA meeting on the 13th.
>
> --MM
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:14:50 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

Milton and all assembly members,

  Well stated here Milton!  Nice job!

Milton Mueller wrote:

> I am surprised at how passive you all are being
> about the MdR agenda.
>
> It is exceedingly interesting that those who know
> the most about security (e.g., Rick Wesson) seem
> to be least swayed by the demand to drop everything
> else and focus on it at an ICANN meeting.
>
> By all means, add it to the agenda. But we need
> a full day of constituency meetings and another,
> separate full day for GA and Names Council meetings.
> Danny, I would ask you to rescind your request
> for a November 12 GA meeting, because it would
> conflict with the ability of ICANN participants to
> attend and work in constituency meetings.
>
> Let the Nov 13 GA meeting add some discussion
> of security to its agenda. Probably a two hour
> block will be sufficient.
>
> Let me remind you all that under ICANN's structure,
> the President of the Corporation does not have any
> control over the agenda of Supporting Organizations.
> The Board can ask the DNSO to make policy on things,
> and it can pass or not pass policies given to it
> by the DNSO, but there is simply no way that the
> Board, let alone the President, can tell us when
> we can meet and what we can discuss at our meetings.
> The constituencies, the GA, and the Names Council
> can all set their own agendas.
>
> The only direct control by the President I can see
> comes from the corporation's reservation and support
> for the rooms. So let us, if necessary, raise the
> required money to reserve our own rooms. But before
> doing that, let's at least show that we have SOME
> backbone and request of ICANN that it make room for
> a GA meeting on the 13th.
>
> --MM
> --
> 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: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:10:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] November 13 GA meeting

I believe the passivity is a sign of total demoralization. 

On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:

> I am surprised at how passive you all are being 
> about the MdR agenda. 
> 
> It is exceedingly interesting that those who know
> the most about security (e.g., Rick Wesson) seem
> to be least swayed by the demand to drop everything
> else and focus on it at an ICANN meeting.
> 
> By all means, add it to the agenda. But we need 
> a full day of constituency meetings and another,
> separate full day for GA and Names Council meetings.
> Danny, I would ask you to rescind your request
> for a November 12 GA meeting, because it would 
> conflict with the ability of ICANN participants to 
> attend and work in constituency meetings.
> 
> Let the Nov 13 GA meeting add some discussion
> of security to its agenda. Probably a two hour
> block will be sufficient. 
> 
> Let me remind you all that under ICANN's structure,
> the President of the Corporation does not have any
> control over the agenda of Supporting Organizations.
> The Board can ask the DNSO to make policy on things,
> and it can pass or not pass policies given to it
> by the DNSO, but there is simply no way that the 
> Board, let alone the President, can tell us when
> we can meet and what we can discuss at our meetings.
> The constituencies, the GA, and the Names Council 
> can all set their own agendas. 
> 
> The only direct control by the President I can see
> comes from the corporation's reservation and support
> for the rooms. So let us, if necessary, raise the
> required money to reserve our own rooms. But before
> doing that, let's at least show that we have SOME
> backbone and request of ICANN that it make room for
> a GA meeting on the 13th. 
> 
> --MM
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #767
************************