Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #775
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, October 5 2001           Volume 01 : Number 775

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

Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:22:35 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC agenda and Recall of GA Chair

On 09:37 04/10/01, Philip Sheppard said:
>Some times these time limits are met, some times not - they are guidelines 
>not statutes, designed to help us not bind us.

Dear Philip,
You obviously are consistent about your fluid understanding of what NC, BC 
rules are. I am certain you will therefore put at the agenda of the next NC 
meeting that such an understanding should be generalized to the whole DNSO. 
This will save us a lot of time about rule setting and enforcement.
Jefsey

To all Members,
the NC Chair expressed that the NC puts to its agenda whatever is proposed 
to the Intake committee be a committed enough GA Member. This is actually 
not a rule (see the above) but is a real steap ahead since we have no vote. 
I therefore suggest that instead of proposing motions, we propose mails to 
the intake commitee. Since NC Intake Committee considers individual mails, 
it will consider more mails from severals. It will also permit keep some order.

To start with:
- - I suggest Joop to prepare a mail about Individual Domain Name Holder 
Constituency I will co-sign?
- - May be Eric could prepare a mail I would co-sign too about the Internet 
Users Constituency?
- - I wish to see Jun Murai proposition to dialog with "alternative (sic) 
roots" to be acted upon.
- - May be someone would propose better than me to have the 9 @large 
directors discussed?
- - Also a clean shirt study about the Internet Security over the six coming 
months, resulting into an ICP-4 Internet Security document.
- - that the .org TLD Manager could be related neither to NSI nor to the ICANN.
- - the icann-sme could jointly propose with Kent Crispin that the SME 
representation would be discussed.

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: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:08:32 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Counting Votes - Re: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

Finally, ...it appears that it is reasonable to suggest that if votes
are going to be counted in the process that voters should first be
qualified upon some measure of their active participation in the
process.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman

Peter de Blanc wrote:
> 
> Joanna and Philip:
> 
> In the interests of eliminating what I consider to be time-wasting
> discussion about procedures, If Philip wishes to withdraw the agenda
> item from the published list, then I will bring it up under AOB at the
> next NC meeting myself.
> 
> That way, we can move on, and hopefully use this list for more
> substantive work.
> 
> As I said in a previous post, my inclination, as a NC member, would be
> to return the request to the GA based on lack of consensus on the
> "motion". In fact, it is not even a motion. So far I have seen only one
> or two "partial agreements" to WXW suggestion.
> 
> If the GA wishes a new chair, it can decide that on its own. And to me,
> that means at least 51% of the persons who have posted to the GA list in
> the last 3 months would need to express such a desire.
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:44 AM
> To: Joanna Lane; Peter de Blanc; 'Jeff Williams'; 'Joop Teernstra'; Paul
> M. Kane; Philip Shepard
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Recall of GA Chair
> 
> Philip,
> 
> Where is the Timeline for the current meeting Agenda, the deadline for
> IC input, the deadline to post to the NC and the deadline for papers?
> All of these should have been posted with the draft agenda prior to
> announcement being made to the NC and GA, shouldn't they?
> 
> According to the agreed rules, "The Intake Committee shall have the sole
> discretion to deviate from these procedures when externalities dictate."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00026.html
> 
> When exactly did the Intake Committee agree to your deviation from
> procedures? Exactly what are the externalities that dictated the
> decision to add to the agenda so late and without any discussion with
> any member of the IC? I would have thought externalities would dictate
> item 8 as "Election of new Intake Committee Chair".
> 
> Also in the rules, "Last minute. In case of issues arising subsequent to
> the above timetable, NC members will be able to propose items for any
> other business at the start of an NC meeting. Such items will be
> accepted for discussion that day or deferred to the IC at the discretion
> of the NC chair. "
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00048.html
> 
> Did you consider discussing William Walsh's comment in AOB, or deferring
> it to the IC for discussion at all?
> 
> It is evident that you have vigorously enforced intake committee
> procedures in the past. For example, you wrote:-
> 
> 1) "Please let me have your agreement today Monday
> September 25 as the period of notice for the next meeting expires
> Wednesday 28 September !"
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00068.html
> 
> 2) "In order to give sufficient notice to NC members and to allow time
> for consultation within constituencies items must be submitted 21 days
> before the date of the meeting. This time limit has passed for the 19
> October meeting.  We welcome your input now and up to 24 October 2000
> for the Names Council meeting of 14 November 2000."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00075.html
> 
> 3)
>  "Timeline
>         o Agenda input closes 3 January 2001
>         o IC submits draft agenda to chair latest 9 January
>         o Chair amends/approves and Secretary posts to NC latest 10
> January
>         o Agenda item documents sent to NC latest 17 January"
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00180.html
> 
> 4) "Note we are late with the timetable and should post to the NC today.
> So, please comments on the agenda by Paris time 16.00 Feb 13. Philip "
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00206.html
> 
> 5) "I am travelling a lot next week and will miss the 25 April deadline
> for posting the agenda to the NC. So please post this agenda below. The
> Intake Committee may still have changes and I can take them when I
> return." http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00238.html
> 
> With so many pressing issues to address in numerous Task Forces on which
> you sit, not to mention the additional burden of the Board's directive
> to focus on security issues, could a few things be falling through the
> net because you are spreading yourself too thin?
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna Lane
> 
> From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
> Organization: AIM
> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:37:25 +0200
> To: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>, "NC \(list\)" <[email-masked]>
> Subject: NC agenda and Recall of GA Chair
> 
> Joanna,
> 
> I would not read too much into the appearance of agenda item 8 about the
> recall of the GA chair. I do not expect a vote to be taken on this item.
> All that has happened is that a member of the GA felt strongly enough to
> request a recall and it seemed inappropriate to ignore this."
> 
> "And please do not get too entangled in NC rules and procedures. We have
> written some guidelines to help ensure that advance notice is given on
> complex issues so that constituencies can debate them and give guidance
> to their reps before an NC meeting. Some times these time limits are
> met, some times not - they are guidelines not statutes, designed to help
> us not bind us.
> 
> Philip
> 
> on 10/4/01 2:23 AM, Joanna Lane at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > On a point of order, item 8, Recall of GA Chair, should not be
> > included as an Agenda item for the Oct 11 NC meeting as this item was
> > submitted too late to the Intake Committee - 17 days prior to the next
> 
> > meeting, which is less than the 21 days required by its adopted rules.
> >
> > The basis for this item's inclusion on the NC agenda item would appear
> 
> > to amount to a single complaint by one person of the GA. To use Philip
> 
> > Shepard's own words to the Intake Committee regarding NC procedures,
> > "Remember, each agenda will have a hyperlink to the e-mail input for
> > that agenda, so anyone can follow the correspondence if they want to
> > spend the time."
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00056.html. There
> > are no hyperlinks for this agenda item because there has been no
> > e-mail input and therefore, no matter how much time NC members may be
> > willing and able to put into it, it would be a complete waste of their
> 
> > time.
> >
> > For your further information, the e-mail history is as follows:-
> >
> > On Sept 23, William X Walsh posted a comment to the General Assembly
> > mailing list requesting a recall of the GA Chair position, copied to
> > the NC Chair.
> >
> > On Sept 24, Philip Shepard forwarded the aforementioned comment by
> > William Walsh to the Intake Committee mailing list.
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00306.html.
> >
> > On Sept 26, Philip Shepard posted a draft agenda for Oct 11 NC
> > meeting, in which Recall of GA Chair appears as item 8.
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00309.html. In
> > consideration of recent events and priorities dictated by the same,
> > serious consideration of the Intake Committee was not given to this
> > late addition.
> >
> > On Oct 1st, Philip Shepard instructed the Secretariat to announce the
> > NC Oct 11 meeting agenda, including item 8.
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00312.html
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna Lane
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC agenda and Recall of GA Chair

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Joanna,
>
> I would not read too much into the appearance of agenda item 8 about the
> recall of the GA chair. I do not expect a vote to be taken on this item. All
> that has happened is that a member of the GA felt strongly enough to request
> a recall and it seemed inappropriate to ignore this.

Great, so does that mean if feel strongly about something such as the
complete abandonment of the normal schedule in favor of ICANN holding a
security workshop that I can look forward to it being put on the agenda
too? A number of people seem to feel pretty strongly on that subject Phillip.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                 "There should be warning labels for politicians."
                            --  Derek Smalls
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:32:08 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] a more efficient relation with the NC proposed by Philip Sheppard

To all Members,
the NC Chair expressed that the NC puts to its agenda whatever is proposed 
to the Intake Committee be a single committed GA Member.

This is actually not a rule as Philip explained that rules are just 
indications, but it is a real step ahead since we have no more voting 
rights. I therefore suggest that instead of proposing motions, we propose 
mails to the intake committee. Since NC Intake Committee does consider 
individual mails, it will certainly consider mails from several. This will 
also permit to keep some order and to be better followed at the GA by the 
mail author.

To start with:
- - I suggest Joop prepares a mail about Individual Domain Name Holder 
Constituency I will co-sign?
- - May be Eric could prepare a mail I would co-sign too about the Internet 
Users Constituency?
- - I wish to see Jun Murai proposition to dialog with "alternative (sic) 
roots" to be acted upon.
- - May be someone would propose better than me to have the 9 @large 
directors discussed?
- - a clean shirt study and on-going debate about the Internet Security over 
the six coming months, resulting into an ICP-4 Internet Security document 
would positively address Stuart's concerns.
- - that the .org TLD Manager could be related neither to NSI nor to the ICANN?
- - the icann-sme could jointly propose the SME representation to be discussed.
- - thanking Patrick Corliss for his incredible dedication and his 
replacement as an Alt.Chair if he cannot attend the Job anymore.

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: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:47:19 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC agenda and Recall of GA Chair

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>
>Dear Philip,
>You obviously are consistent about your fluid understanding of what NC, BC
>rules are. I am certain you will therefore put at the agenda of the next NC
>meeting that such an understanding should be generalized to the whole DNSO.
>This will save us a lot of time about rule setting and enforcement.
>Jefsey
>

A lot of bad things can be said about the GA, but I am sure that nobody can 
deny us the "creativity in criticism".
In the past, I have spent a lot of time in explaining to the NC Chairs 
(current and former) that the GA resents the fact that "they" are not always 
open to the requests from the "rank and file".
Apparently the NC has been reacting positively, so after having criticized 
the NC for not being open to GA petitions, we rabidly (sorry for the typo, I 
meant "rapidly") switchover and criticize the opposite. Well done!

>
>
>To all Members,
>the NC Chair expressed that the NC puts to its agenda whatever is proposed
>to the Intake committee be a committed enough GA Member. This is actually
>not a rule (see the above) but is a real steap ahead since we have no vote.
>I therefore suggest that instead of proposing motions, we propose mails to
>the intake commitee. Since NC Intake Committee considers individual mails,
>it will consider more mails from severals. It will also permit keep some 
>order.
>
>To start with:
>- I suggest Joop to prepare a mail about Individual Domain Name Holder
>Constituency I will co-sign?
>- May be Eric could prepare a mail I would co-sign too about the Internet
>Users Constituency?
>- I wish to see Jun Murai proposition to dialog with "alternative (sic)
>roots" to be acted upon.
>- May be someone would propose better than me to have the 9 @large
>directors discussed?
>- Also a clean shirt study about the Internet Security over the six coming
>months, resulting into an ICP-4 Internet Security document.
>- that the .org TLD Manager could be related neither to NSI nor to the 
>ICANN.
>- the icann-sme could jointly propose with Kent Crispin that the SME
>representation would be discussed.
>

And how can the paralysis of the NC under a flow of proposals help the DNSO?

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:55:27 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recall of GA Chair

William,

>
>I challenge anyone who opposes my request to tell me that our Chair
>and Alt-Chair have been effective, and to do so with a straight face.
>Opposing the request because you think a poor chair is acceptable,
>rather than seeking something more than simply acceptable, is
>irresponsible.

What is irresponsible, IMHO, is to bring the matter to the NC when we are 
struggling for demonstrating that we don't need NC's "adult supervision" for 
the GA Chairmanship.
If you *really* thought that Danny would no longer be supported by the GA, 
you should have argumented your points asking for a *GA action*, not a *NC 
action*.
Try to start a straw poll, if you have enough supporters for your position I 
am sure that the pressure will be such that a vote would be organized. But 
if you get only half a dozen supporters, please put this issue at rest 
forever.

Incidentally, suppose that the NC will positively consider your request, and 
recall the Chair, what do you think will happen to our request of NC not 
interfering in GA Chair elections?

Thanks
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:49:24 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recall of GA Chair

On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 05:55:27PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> William,
> 
> >
> >I challenge anyone who opposes my request to tell me that our Chair
> >and Alt-Chair have been effective, and to do so with a straight face.
> >Opposing the request because you think a poor chair is acceptable,
> >rather than seeking something more than simply acceptable, is
> >irresponsible.
> 
> What is irresponsible, IMHO, is to bring the matter to the NC when we are 
> struggling for demonstrating that we don't need NC's "adult supervision" 
> for the GA Chairmanship.

This concern, IMO, is misplaced because your model is fundamentally
flawed.  It is flawed because it views the GA and the NC as two
independent bodies, rather than as parts of the same body.  According to
the bylaws it is indeed the NC that is charged with "managing the
consensus process" for the entire DNSO, and therefore, it has the
responsibility for maintaining standards of interaction and so on --
that is, "adult supervision" is precisely its job.  The problem, in
other words, is not that the GA needs to demonstrate it's ability to
function independently -- the problem is that the NC has been remiss in
its job of managing the GA from the beginning.  It is the NC that should
have instituted list rules, not the GA.  It is the NC that should
establish policies for GA.  The "bottom up" structure comes from the
fact that the NC is *elected* by the constituencies.  The fact that
there is a representational gap in the constituency structure is a
problem, and that problem is not solved by creating a additional
structure in the GA.

> If you *really* thought that Danny would no longer be supported by the GA, 
> you should have argumented your points asking for a *GA action*, not a *NC 
> action*.

Nope.  In my view it is precisely the NC that should bear 
responsibility for this.  

> Try to start a straw poll, if you have enough supporters for your position I 
> am sure that the pressure will be such that a vote would be organized. But 
> if you get only half a dozen supporters, please put this issue at rest 
> forever.

The idea that the GA should vote on things is fundamentally flawed. 
Despite the appearances, IN FACT the GA is an unaccountable fluid group
of email identities, not a body of people.  The NC, on the other hand,
is composed of real people that we know.

Consequently, IN FACT votes in the NC are open and transparent in a way
that votes in the GA simply cannot match, and I would really much rather
have there be people doing votes, people we can accost at meetings and
yell at, instead of email addresses. 

> Incidentally, suppose that the NC will positively consider your request, 
> and recall the Chair, what do you think will happen to our request of NC 
> not interfering in GA Chair elections?

I personally hope that they ignore it.  According to the bylaws, they 
must ignore it, because it would be an abdication of their assigned 
duties. 

Kent

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Immediate Action (Was Re: Recall of GA Chair)

- --- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote: 

> Just in case, if I have something to report that
> requires immediate action by the
> GA (like consensus on an issue), can I count ou you
> all for a quick turnaround?

Dan,

As precedence shows, the GA can switch subjects and
address the issue on a moment's notice, but consensus?

I'm not sure the GA has reached an agreed-upon
consensus on any issue, ever.  

Immediate discussion, yes.  Immediate action, maybe
not.

Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:43:47 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

Thursday, Thursday, October 04, 2001, 6:36:38 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> As I said in a previous post, my inclination, as a NC member, would be
> to return the request to the GA based on lack of consensus on the
> "motion". In fact, it is not even a motion. So far I have seen only one
> or two "partial agreements" to WXW suggestion.

It is indeed sad to see a NC member not willing to step up to the
plate on the issue of GA leadership, and instead passing the buck back
to the GA. If the GA could solve the problem, it would have by now.

- -- 
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: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:46:15 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Recall of GA Chair

Thursday, Thursday, October 04, 2001, 6:43:06 AM, Dan Steinberg wrote:

> ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm this is no reflection on Joanna or any other individual post.
> Hers just happened to be the latest I found in the thread.  But I have been
> following this debate from the sidelines, which is where I usually stay for what I
> perceive to be politically-motivated threads. Last night, I stopped to count the
> number of posts in this 'recall' thread. I quickly gave up.
> Are there not at least a  few more pressing agendas for the GA?

Yes, there are.  But with our current chair, it never amounts to
anything more than idle conversation here, since he has shown no
interest or ability to direct the discussion along consensus points
and use his leadership role to bring some cohesiveness to the GA's
positions.

This isn't politically motivated.  This is about effectiveness.  Can
you honestly say, Dan, that the current Chair has effectively helped
developed consensus in the GA on issues?

- -- 
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: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:49:20 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Immediate Action (Was Re: Recall of GA Chair)

Thursday, Thursday, October 04, 2001, 12:40:02 PM, technizmo wrote:

> --- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote: 

>> Just in case, if I have something to report that
>> requires immediate action by the
>> GA (like consensus on an issue), can I count ou you
>> all for a quick turnaround?

> Dan,

> As precedence shows, the GA can switch subjects and
> address the issue on a moment's notice, but consensus?

> I'm not sure the GA has reached an agreed-upon
> consensus on any issue, ever.  

> Immediate discussion, yes.  Immediate action, maybe
> not.

And with a new Chair, who views the position not as a bully pulpit or
his election as a tacit endorsement of his agenda and advocacy for
that agenda, this would change.

- -- 
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: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

> > As I said in a previous post, my inclination, as a NC member, would be
> > to return the request to the GA based on lack of consensus on the
> > "motion". In fact, it is not even a motion. So far I have seen only one
> > or two "partial agreements" to WXW suggestion.
>
> It is indeed sad to see a NC member not willing to step up to the
> plate on the issue of GA leadership, and instead passing the buck back
> to the GA. If the GA could solve the problem, it would have by now.

I'm not certain if the complaint or one or two individuals raises this to
the level of a "problem" of the GA.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                 "There should be warning labels for politicians."
                            --  Derek Smalls
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:11:32 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

Thursday, Thursday, October 04, 2001, 2:08:13 PM, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

>> > As I said in a previous post, my inclination, as a NC member, would be
>> > to return the request to the GA based on lack of consensus on the
>> > "motion". In fact, it is not even a motion. So far I have seen only one
>> > or two "partial agreements" to WXW suggestion.
>>
>> It is indeed sad to see a NC member not willing to step up to the
>> plate on the issue of GA leadership, and instead passing the buck back
>> to the GA. If the GA could solve the problem, it would have by now.

> I'm not certain if the complaint or one or two individuals raises this to
> the level of a "problem" of the GA.

Lack of complaint doesn't eliminate the fact that the GA has been
absolutely unproductive since this chair took office.  That is the
problem.

The number of people who happen to find that to be a bad thing is
irrelevant.

- -- 
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: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:21:39 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: 911 (was Re: [ga] Immediate Action (Was Re: Recall of GA Chair)

As we sit here contemplating the removal of the Chair, there is currently a
new gTLD introduction going on.  The .info irregularities which I raised are
still... well, irregular.  The very idea that this sort of stuff is going on
should be an important signal about what has happened since the Intellectual
Property interests took control of domain policy for the WWW.  It's truly a
mess.  Thanks for nihil ladies and gents.  I am considering the likelihood of
some pretty nasty legal scenarios.  [But hey, they're lawyers right?  what
else could they want?}

Question:  Why is it that the small registrars (dotster, gandi etc.,) are not
currently doing real-time registrations,  but the big boys (verisign and
register.com) are able to do so?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network Inc.

William X Walsh wrote:

> Thursday, Thursday, October 04, 2001, 12:40:02 PM, technizmo wrote:
>
> > --- Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >> Just in case, if I have something to report that
> >> requires immediate action by the
> >> GA (like consensus on an issue), can I count ou you
> >> all for a quick turnaround?
>
> > Dan,
>
> > As precedence shows, the GA can switch subjects and
> > address the issue on a moment's notice, but consensus?
>
>
> > I'm not sure the GA has reached an agreed-upon
> > consensus on any issue, ever.
>
> > Immediate discussion, yes.  Immediate action, maybe
> > not.
>
> And with a new Chair, who views the position not as a bully pulpit or
> his election as a tacit endorsement of his agenda and advocacy for
> that agenda, this would change.
>
> --
> 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-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: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 07:30:19 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Peter de Blanc
|> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:37 PM
|> To: 'Joanna Lane'; 'Jeff Williams'; 'Joop Teernstra'; 'Paul M. Kane';
|> 'Philip Shepard'
|> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair
|>
<snip>
|> If the GA wishes a new chair, it can decide that on its own. And to me,
|> that means at least 51% of the persons who have posted to the GA list in
|> the last 3 months would need to express such a desire.
<snip>

For the GA to do anything it needs an effective Chair.  That is one of the
issues and why the item is on the agenda one would assume.  It would also be
presumptive to impose a majority vote on such an issue in the GA.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 07:42:33 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Patrick Greenwell
|> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 7:08 AM
|> To: William X Walsh
|> Cc: Peter de Blanc; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair
|>
|>
|> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, William X Walsh wrote:
|>
|> > > As I said in a previous post, my inclination, as a NC
|> member, would be
|> > > to return the request to the GA based on lack of consensus on the
|> > > "motion". In fact, it is not even a motion. So far I have
|> seen only one
|> > > or two "partial agreements" to WXW suggestion.
|> >
|> > It is indeed sad to see a NC member not willing to step up to the
|> > plate on the issue of GA leadership, and instead passing the buck back
|> > to the GA. If the GA could solve the problem, it would have by now.
|>
|> I'm not certain if the complaint or one or two individuals raises this to
|> the level of a "problem" of the GA.

It only takes one person to raise awareness of an issue for it be open for
analysis.  The spotlight at this time is the productivity and effectiveness
of the GA.  It has been suggested recalling the Chair with more effective
facilitation will address this issue.  Personally, I only see that happening
if we get the right person into the position.  The GA may even end up worse
off otherwise.

If you don't see the current effectiveness and productivity of the GA as an
issue and consider the GA is actually fulfilling all requirements then you
would obviously not see any value in this agenda item.  If you do see the
same issues as I do, you may have alternative solutions.  I would be
interested in viewing them.  At this time, replacing the Chair is attractive
to me.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 23:59:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: INFO [Re: 911 (was Re: [ga] Immediate Action (Was Re: Recall of GA Chair)]

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, at 17:21 [=GMT-0700], Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

[...]
> Question:  Why is it that the small registrars (dotster, gandi etc.,) are not
> currently doing real-time registrations,  but the big boys (verisign and
> register.com) are able to do so?

Not sure you are right. The only registrar of the 4 I tried that gives
me positive results is Enom. Not bigger than the ones you mention. My
guess is that it depends on

1. getting up the code (at least two registrars do not even have
running the code to change DNS for info names registered during
landrush...);
2. number of resllers (which is why Tucows/OpenSRS fails  right now)

My guess is: this is not the fault of all or most registrars. So whose
fault is it then? Was Afilias not a safe choice for ICANN?

Stability of the internet? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. 

Oklahoma. Those who did sneaky things were the only people who
understood.

Ach.

- --
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 #775
************************