Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #772
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, October 3 2001          Volume 01 : Number 772

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

Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:18:50 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Review Task Force report

Jeff, et all...

Regarding the agenda item of the chair of the GA...

I just looked up the request on
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00306.html
It was William Walsh.
The E-mail appears below

Jeff, as a names council member, I support the idea that any member of
the GA may submit a request to the NC intake. Your comment:

"  Small wonder that the NC Agenda has this item on it.  Indeed it does
not belong on the NC agenda.  However the NC has the right and the
ability to do so should they so choose."

Is not appropriate. A GA member submitted that request, it did not
originate in the NC

Peter de Blanc
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: 23 September 2001 09:51
Subject: 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
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------------

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 8:31 AM
To: 'Jeff Williams'; 'Joop Teernstra'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [ga] Review Task Force report

Jeff, et all.

The reason that the item is on the NC agenda is that someone in the GA
submitted it to the intake committee.

Speaking for myself, when the item comes up, I would recommend sending
it back to the GA, where it belongs.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:25 AM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

Joop and all assembly members,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:48 2/10/01 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> >Can somebody explain me why we talk about replacing a Chair that is
> >doing something, even if not everybody agrees with him, and not 
> >rather an Alternate Chair, that is completely absent?
>
> Roberto and Danny,
>
> Let me not be misunderstood. Perhaps I should not have reacted to the
> provocative postings of WXW at all, but now I see that the item has 
> actually been placed on the NC agenda.

  Small wonder that the NC Agenda has this item on it.  Indeed it does
not belong on the NC agenda.  However the NC has the right and the
ability to do so should they so choose.

>
> I do not support any attempt to replace our elected Chair.

  Nor do I.  As far as I know WXW and Peter seem to be the only' ones
thus far the seem to desire to.

>
>
> All I'm saying is that we lack a procedure to do such ourselves *if*
> it ever would be needed.

 Such procedures must be decided by majority vote by the GA members.
Thus far motions put forth for such procedures have been refused a
ballot by the GA secretariat.  Therefore such procedures of this nature
do not exist and are likely not to in the near term.  However, lack of
such procedures is a minor issue at present as there are MUCH more
pressing issues that the GA and the DNSO need to address.

>
>
> Our alt-Chair's absence, I believe, is due to illness. Therefore I
> keep encouraging Danny to appoint Chairs to some of the sublists to 
> help him bringing order in the chaos.

  There is not chaos that I can see at the moment to address, Joop.  If
you believe there is, please state clearly and concisely what the nature
of your perception of "The Chaos" is.  Failing to do so, leaves great
doubt in your perception...

  Appointment of Chairs for the now rarely used "Sub-Lists" which have
plainly shown to divide rather than to assist in policy making within
the GA, is an improper approach to such determination.  Should such a
determination be necessary, a VOTE by the GA members is the proper
procedure to affect such a solution...

>
>
>

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:17:57 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Memo to Stuart Lynn

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your reply and clarification.  My primary concern is fairness.  
As I do not believe that it is fair to compress all constituency meetings, 
the Names Council session and the GA session into the same day, I will 
endeavor to make arrangements to hold the General Assembly's annual meeting 
at another venue on November 13 (as you have already indicated that there is 
'no room at the inn').  

By the same token, as we do not wish to unduly interfere with the schedule 
that you are arranging for the 13th, and have no particular wish to draw 
participants away from the events that you are scheduling, if you could 
advise the tentative schedule for that date, it will be easier for us to plan 
an appropriate meeting time that will minimize the possibility of scheduling 
conflicts.

Upon your reply I will take all necessary steps to secure a sponsor for the 
General Assembly's Annual Meeting.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:25:35 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

Friends,

Generally, I would clip a tail this long but it is just to interesting.
First let me offer my prayers for Patrick and ask if he can be mailed with
get well mail as I would like him to know we think of him and wish him well.

Perhaps I should also send something to WXW but it appears he is doing just
dandy.  I would like to know who he wants to replace Danny.  I would think
that what WXW really wants is to have someone who is against the
dotcommoners and probing business and I certainly disagree with him on that.

I like the revelation that we may directly petition the NC and have it
placed on the agenda.  Although it seems odd that when our chair petitions
them they seem to ignore it or deny it.

Joop what is the status of your proposal?  Is it ready for a vote of
confidence from the GA?

Roberto other than comment here how can we best contribute to your position
paper within the timelines you provided?  Should we directly petition the NC
with regard to it, as WXW has taught us is so effective?

Did anyone else notice Ester put forth two rather strange public statements
recently regarding that the ALSC did not need to respond or take into
consideration public opinion and then demanding time to put forth their
position publicly in MDR.  Hmm, if she don't care what we think why should
she care what we think?

No fear is greater than the fear of fear, no corporation is greater than
it's members.

Eric

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Jeff, et all...
>
> Regarding the agenda item of the chair of the GA...
>
> I just looked up the request on
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00306.html
> It was William Walsh.
> The E-mail appears below
>
> Jeff, as a names council member, I support the idea that any member of
> the GA may submit a request to the NC intake. Your comment:
>
> "  Small wonder that the NC Agenda has this item on it.  Indeed it does
> not belong on the NC agenda.  However the NC has the right and the
> ability to do so should they so choose."
>
> Is not appropriate. A GA member submitted that request, it did not
> originate in the NC
>
> Peter de Blanc
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: 23 September 2001 09:51
> Subject: 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 8:31 AM
> To: 'Jeff Williams'; 'Joop Teernstra'
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: [ga] Review Task Force report
>
> Jeff, et all.
>
> The reason that the item is on the NC agenda is that someone in the GA
> submitted it to the intake committee.
>
> Speaking for myself, when the item comes up, I would recommend sending
> it back to the GA, where it belongs.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
> Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:25 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report
>
> Joop and all assembly members,
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 18:48 2/10/01 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > >Can somebody explain me why we talk about replacing a Chair that is
> > >doing something, even if not everybody agrees with him, and not
> > >rather an Alternate Chair, that is completely absent?
> >
> > Roberto and Danny,
> >
> > Let me not be misunderstood. Perhaps I should not have reacted to the
> > provocative postings of WXW at all, but now I see that the item has
> > actually been placed on the NC agenda.
>
>   Small wonder that the NC Agenda has this item on it.  Indeed it does
> not belong on the NC agenda.  However the NC has the right and the
> ability to do so should they so choose.
>
> >
> > I do not support any attempt to replace our elected Chair.
>
>   Nor do I.  As far as I know WXW and Peter seem to be the only' ones
> thus far the seem to desire to.
>
> >
> >
> > All I'm saying is that we lack a procedure to do such ourselves *if*
> > it ever would be needed.
>
>  Such procedures must be decided by majority vote by the GA members.
> Thus far motions put forth for such procedures have been refused a
> ballot by the GA secretariat.  Therefore such procedures of this nature
> do not exist and are likely not to in the near term.  However, lack of
> such procedures is a minor issue at present as there are MUCH more
> pressing issues that the GA and the DNSO need to address.
>
> >
> >
> > Our alt-Chair's absence, I believe, is due to illness. Therefore I
> > keep encouraging Danny to appoint Chairs to some of the sublists to
> > help him bringing order in the chaos.
>
>   There is not chaos that I can see at the moment to address, Joop.  If
> you believe there is, please state clearly and concisely what the nature
> of your perception of "The Chaos" is.  Failing to do so, leaves great
> doubt in your perception...
>
>   Appointment of Chairs for the now rarely used "Sub-Lists" which have
> plainly shown to divide rather than to assist in policy making within
> the GA, is an improper approach to such determination.  Should such a
> determination be necessary, a VOTE by the GA members is the proper
> procedure to affect such a solution...
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> 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
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:06:56 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .info irregularities

I pre-registered a desirable .info domain name during the pre-registration
phase with dotster.com.  I was the only bidder for the domain in the
dotster.com pre-registration program, so I "won" that submission to Afilias
from dotster.com (at least that's what I was given to understand).  Funny
enough, I just checked the .info WHOIS and i noticed that dotster inc. is now
the registrant of the domain they were to submit on my behalf!!  what the hell
is going on here?!

Furious,

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: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:51:08 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Review Task Force report

On 14:31 03/10/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>Jeff, et all.
>The reason that the item is on the NC agenda is that someone in the GA
>submitted it to the intake committee.

Oh! could you explain us how that intake committee works? I was not aware 
that when someone on the GA submitted something the NC had to get it at its 
agenda. I think there are a few item we had not got discussed by the NC 
just because we were not aware ... too bad. But we will correct that as 
soon as we know the proper channel.
Thanks.
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: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:31:46 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Message from Stuart Lynn to the NC

Please be advised that Stuart Lynn has sent the following message to the 
Names Council regarding the upcoming November meetings:

Dear colleagues:

The meeting on security is beginning to shape up although it will be 
several days yet before we can fill in the details. A program 
committee is being formed to define the agenda and invite speakers. 
We will provide details as they become available. In the meantime, 
your suggestions for how to make the agenda as meaningful to you as 
possible would be welcome, as well as your suggestions for invited 
speakers.

The overall purposes of the program - beyond those stated in previous 
announcement - are to educate, to enhance awareness, to assess 
security and readiness in the broadest terms, and to launch 
continuing efforts to assess and improve security and readiness 
across the scope of ICANN's activities and communities. In large 
part, this will be a bottom-up process of analysis and development of 
processes and recommendations, culminating is presentations to be 
made by Councils and Advisory Committees to the Board on the final 
day.

To make it a little clearer, by "security" I mean security primarily 
of DNS services and the entities that provide them, including both 
protection against potential threats and the ability to recover from 
actual serious failures. This includes practices such as site 
security, network security, data backup and escrow, recovery 
procedures and processes, management and personnel practices, etc. In 
addition, we need to become informed about  the status of improved 
technical standards, such as DNSSEC, and other technical issues that 
apply to the broader context of the DNS. I am sure most DNS service 
providers take these matters very seriously and work hard to keep 
their systems and networks secure; the November discussions will 
proceed on the assumption that there is always room for 
self-assessment, dialogue, and improvement.

Here is how we are currently envisioning the meeting program (subject 
to further input and refinement). In very rough outline (more later) 
the meeting would open with a series of plenary orientation talks and 
panels focusing on both management and technical security issues, and 
what are the dangers of neglecting these issues. One emphasis would 
be that security and recovery are as much management issues as 
technical, and that many (if not most) failures can be attributed to 
lack of management attention. These orientation sessions would lay 
out a common framework for the rest of the meeting.They would be 
followed by a series of facilitated small workshops (everyone 
participates) that will focus on self-assessment (not for 
distribution) and tease out issues, ideas, and recommendations 
through group discussion and mutual education. These outputs would in 
turn feed into meetings of ICANN constituencies and other component 
organizations to develop recommendations for future actions, 
processes, policies etc for future constituency action and 
consideration, or that would be "synthesized" by Councils along with 
other recommendations for reporting to the Board the following day. 
There will be other tracks that would focus on specific technical or 
other questions that need to be discussed.

Incidentally, the reports to the Board would be followed by some open 
mike time on security, to be followed by a Board discussion of what 
it has heard. After lunch, there will be separate open mike time for 
general issues followed by a regular Board meeting for issues that 
have to be considered (because "time is of the essence").

As previously indicated, November 12 is available for other 
constituency/Council/advisory committee meetings for other business. 
On the evening of the 12th, however, a Public Forum will be scheduled 
for a report by the At Large Study Committee followed by discussion 
in the usual format.

The above is an outline. Within that outline are many details to be 
nailed down over the coming days and weeks. The meeting will only be 
as successful as you make it, so your thoughts will be greatly 
appreciated. Please send your ideas and comments to [email-masked] 
from where they will be distributed efficiently to all the people 
planning the meeting - or to me directly (but, sadly, I am less 
efficient!).

With regards
Stuart

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00084.html 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:53:48 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] UWHO website

I have received a request from Miriam Sapiro to advise the General Assembly 
that VeriSign has established a website to facilitate discussion of the 
Centralized Whois project (which is mandated under appendix W of the Registry 
agreement).  The website address is http://uwho.verisignlabs.com

I appreciate the fact that VeriSign has reached out to the General Assembly 
for its input, and I look forward to everyone's comments on this topic.  
VeriSign has indicated that it will continue to hold outreach meetings on the 
Universal WHOIS (dates, times, locations to be announced), and I will 
continue to report to the GA on such sessions for the benefit of those that 
cannot attend.

FYI, appendix W states:

Registry Operator shall develop and deploy a centralized Whois for the .com, 
.net, and .org TLDs if mandated by ICANN insofar as reasonably feasible, 
particularly in view of Registry Operator's dependence on cooperation of 
third parties.

During the period between the Effective Date of this Agreement and December 
31, 2010, Registry Operator agrees to expend a minimum of US$200,000,000 for 
research, development, and infrastructure improvements to the .com, .net, and 
.org Registries (the "Improvements"). The intent of the Improvements is to 
increase the efficiency and stability of the .com, .net and .org Registries. 
Registry Operator shall ensure that a substantial portion of expenditures for 
the Improvements occurs prior to November 10, 2007. Registry Operator shall 
provide ICANN with an annual report on this research and development activity.

Registry Operator agrees that one of the early goals of the Improvements is 
to design and develop a Universal Whois Service that will allow public access 
and effective use of Whois across all Registries and all TLDs. Registry 
Operator shall commence research and development of the Universal Whois 
Service no later than December 31, 2001. Registry Operator shall, insofar as 
is reasonably possible in view of Registry Operator's dependence on the 
cooperation of third parties, strive to achieve significant progress in 
implementing the Universal Whois Service by December 31, 2002.

Registry Operator further agrees that if it successfully designs and develops 
the Universal Whois Service it will (a) make the Application Program 
Interfaces necessary to produce software which can efficiently deploy and use 
the Universal Whois Service available to applications developers on an open, 
non-proprietary, standards-based and royalty-free basis, and (b) make the 
Universal Whois Service available at a standardized reasonable fee to be 
negotiated with ICANN.
 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:02:08 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .info irregularities

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> I pre-registered a desirable .info domain name during the pre-registration
> phase with dotster.com.  I was the only bidder for the domain in the
> dotster.com pre-registration program, so I "won" that submission to Afilias
> from dotster.com (at least that's what I was given to understand).  Funny
> enough, I just checked the .info WHOIS and i noticed that dotster inc. is now
> the registrant of the domain they were to submit on my behalf!!  what the hell
> is going on here?!

What's going on is that ICANN is in the pocket of all those fine folks who
do that kind of profiteering, and thus has put nothing in any of its agreements
that would prevent them from ripping off you and me by any means they can
come up with.  Just as ICANN and Verisign, etc., seem to have set up the
ACPA ( that cybersquatting abomination) so that registrars can hoard and do
other things that are prohibited to us peons.

That's the charge. Anyone want to dispute it?

Bill Lovell

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
Part III:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:09:14 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Message from Stuart Lynn to the NC

So, the plan is to get prepared to develop a disaster recovery plan for 
ICANN's network?  I am sure the time would be much better spent working on 
other agendas and hiring Roeland or the like to deploy the DRP and 
additional security.  While I appreciate the effort to educate, it seems 
awkward to spend the money on this rather than the intended meeting.

~k

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

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

Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:15:06 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .info irregularities

Just like the backwards logic being used to prevent participation through the AL.
Just like the backwards rules that protect the mega corps and IP interests from us
small people.  We now have Mr. Lynn telling us that we are going to discuss
security, and he quite clearly does not mean Sotiris' security in a contractual
right or to not have things stolen from him, what Mr. Lynn means is how he can help
the existing registrars and registries free from competition and secure in their
vast wealth.  Security my butt what he means is tyranny.  The most fundamental right
provided by any type of governance is the right to petition against redresses, sorry
Sotiris you ain't got that right.

Sincerely,
Eric

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > I pre-registered a desirable .info domain name during the pre-registration
> > phase with dotster.com.  I was the only bidder for the domain in the
> > dotster.com pre-registration program, so I "won" that submission to Afilias
> > from dotster.com (at least that's what I was given to understand).  Funny
> > enough, I just checked the .info WHOIS and i noticed that dotster inc. is now
> > the registrant of the domain they were to submit on my behalf!!  what the hell
> > is going on here?!
>
> What's going on is that ICANN is in the pocket of all those fine folks who
> do that kind of profiteering, and thus has put nothing in any of its agreements
> that would prevent them from ripping off you and me by any means they can
> come up with.  Just as ICANN and Verisign, etc., seem to have set up the
> ACPA ( that cybersquatting abomination) so that registrars can hoard and do
> other things that are prohibited to us peons.
>
> That's the charge. Anyone want to dispute it?
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> --
>
> The URLs for Best Practices:
> DNSO Citation:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
> page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
> Part I:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> Part II:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> (Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
> available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> Part III:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:32:49 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Message from Stuart Lynn to the NC

The point is that a very small part of the ICANN is outreach and education.
Even that, only from a management perspective. This means that ICANN should
be spending valuable business meeting time discussing creation and efficacy
of such programs. Rather than implementing such a program during a business
meeting. There are security oriented commercial conventions that do that job
much better then ICANN could ever pretend to achieve.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:09 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Message from Stuart Lynn to the NC
|> 
|> 
|> So, the plan is to get prepared to develop a disaster 
|> recovery plan for 
|> ICANN's network?  I am sure the time would be much better 
|> spent working on 
|> other agendas and hiring Roeland or the like to deploy the DRP and 
|> additional security.  While I appreciate the effort to 
|> educate, it seems 
|> awkward to spend the money on this rather than the intended meeting.
|> 
|> ~k
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:55:33 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Jeff, et all...
>
> Regarding the agenda item of the chair of the GA...
>
> I just looked up the request on
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00306.html
> It was William Walsh.
> The E-mail appears below

  Yes I am aware that WXW submitted the request.  Hence my earlier comments.

>
>
> Jeff, as a names council member, I support the idea that any member of
> the GA may submit a request to the NC intake.

  I agree with this sentiment and policy. I also agree, as I stated that the

NC has the right to decide what is on the NC agenda, should it so choose
to do so.  As a matter of procedure this seems reasonable.

> Your comment:
>
> "  Small wonder that the NC Agenda has this item on it.  Indeed it does
> not belong on the NC agenda.  However the NC has the right and the
> ability to do so should they so choose."
>
> Is not appropriate. A GA member submitted that request, it did not
> originate in the NC

  Yes Peter, I know!!!  That was AGAIN why I stated the comment you
reference!
If you had not interpreted it in this negative light, you would of course
instantly understood it!  Obviously now, I see that you decided to
take a negative view!  That is terribly unfortunate, and very inappropriate.

I was supporting the NC in setting it's own agenda as well as taking
input to that agenda from the GA.

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: 23 September 2001 09:51
> Subject: 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 8:31 AM
> To: 'Jeff Williams'; 'Joop Teernstra'
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: [ga] Review Task Force report
>
> Jeff, et all.
>
> The reason that the item is on the NC agenda is that someone in the GA
> submitted it to the intake committee.
>
> Speaking for myself, when the item comes up, I would recommend sending
> it back to the GA, where it belongs.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
> Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 6:25 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force report
>
> Joop and all assembly members,
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 18:48 2/10/01 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > >Can somebody explain me why we talk about replacing a Chair that is
> > >doing something, even if not everybody agrees with him, and not
> > >rather an Alternate Chair, that is completely absent?
> >
> > Roberto and Danny,
> >
> > Let me not be misunderstood. Perhaps I should not have reacted to the
> > provocative postings of WXW at all, but now I see that the item has
> > actually been placed on the NC agenda.
>
>   Small wonder that the NC Agenda has this item on it.  Indeed it does
> not belong on the NC agenda.  However the NC has the right and the
> ability to do so should they so choose.
>
> >
> > I do not support any attempt to replace our elected Chair.
>
>   Nor do I.  As far as I know WXW and Peter seem to be the only' ones
> thus far the seem to desire to.
>
> >
> >
> > All I'm saying is that we lack a procedure to do such ourselves *if*
> > it ever would be needed.
>
>  Such procedures must be decided by majority vote by the GA members.
> Thus far motions put forth for such procedures have been refused a
> ballot by the GA secretariat.  Therefore such procedures of this nature
> do not exist and are likely not to in the near term.  However, lack of
> such procedures is a minor issue at present as there are MUCH more
> pressing issues that the GA and the DNSO need to address.
>
> >
> >
> > Our alt-Chair's absence, I believe, is due to illness. Therefore I
> > keep encouraging Danny to appoint Chairs to some of the sublists to
> > help him bringing order in the chaos.
>
>   There is not chaos that I can see at the moment to address, Joop.  If
> you believe there is, please state clearly and concisely what the nature
> of your perception of "The Chaos" is.  Failing to do so, leaves great
> doubt in your perception...
>
>   Appointment of Chairs for the now rarely used "Sub-Lists" which have
> plainly shown to divide rather than to assist in policy making within
> the GA, is an improper approach to such determination.  Should such a
> determination be necessary, a VOTE by the GA members is the proper
> procedure to affect such a solution...
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> 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

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #772
************************