Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #776
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, October 5 2001           Volume 01 : Number 776

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

Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 18:11:48 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

I am not imposing a majority. I am just saying (personally), as a NC
member, if there was a "ground swell" of consensus about a new GA chair,
I would be inclined to move to action on the NC.

Certainly 1, or 2, or even 5 persons agreeing with WXW is not a "ground
swell", rough consensus, or anything like it.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dassa
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:30 PM
To: [email-masked]; [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

- --
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 18:27:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

for the record, I oppose this recall idea

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I am not imposing a majority. I am just saying (personally), as a NC
> member, if there was a "ground swell" of consensus about a new GA chair,
> I would be inclined to move to action on the NC.
> 
> Certainly 1, or 2, or even 5 persons agreeing with WXW is not a "ground
> swell", rough consensus, or anything like it.
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dassa
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:30 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [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
> 
> --
> 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

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

Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:32:43 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

Thursday, Thursday, October 04, 2001, 3:27:53 PM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> for the record, I oppose this recall idea

But then, you oppose anything ICANN, and anything that would add
legitimacy to the ICANN process, such as a strong GA, would not serve
you already slanted agenda.

So this is really no surprise.

- -- 
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 17:44:58 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC agenda and Recall of GA Chair

Phillip and all assembly members,

  Seems rather strange that one GA member, WXW, can make a request
to add something on the NC's agenda and it gets added.  Yet anyone else
that does regardless of whether it was done inside the deadline, and it
is ignored or doesn't get on the Agenda....  Very odd..  Hummmm???

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.
>
> 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
>

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: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 15:41:08 -0700 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 2:12 PM
|> 
|> Thursday, Thursday, October 04, 2001, 2:08:13 PM, Patrick 
|> Greenwell wrote:

|> > 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 GA has been absolutely unproductive since its inception, period. It
always has been. The DNSO NC isn't much better, as has been reported in
WG-Review. Where is this particular instance any different? This could lead
one to the conclusion that changing leadership would not improve things one
iota and that it would be, in fact, deconstructive.

The real problem is that we have no focus because we, in fact, have nothing
credible to focus on. Whereever we may place our focus is blured because we
have no capability/authority to create a direct effect. Nothing the GA does
is presented without suitable spin, by the NC and ICANN BoD. From a
management perspective, this makes it difficult for GA members to get up a
lot of enthusiasm for any particular point. To then blame this on the
current chair is both grossly unfair and ludicrous. He didn't create this
environment and neither did his predecessors.

What is well documented is that the previous approach wasn't working. I, for
one, am willing to see him try a different approach, the fruit of which
hasn't had time to ripen yet.

What you are doing here is like the kid in a car on a long trip. The answer
is, "no, we aren't there yet!" and please quit distracting the driver.
- --
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 15:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> The GA has been absolutely unproductive since its inception, period. It
> always has been. The DNSO NC isn't much better, as has been reported in
> WG-Review. Where is this particular instance any different? This could lead
> one to the conclusion that changing leadership would not improve things one
> iota and that it would be, in fact, deconstructive.
>
> The real problem is that we have no focus because we, in fact, have nothing
> credible to focus on.

What he said.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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 18:10:00 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Recall of GA Chair

WXW and all assembly members,

William X Walsh wrote:

> 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.

  Which is the problem?  The chair or the unproductive GA?
(Hint: Work on your sentence construction)...

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

  Which or what to be a bad thing?  And no, it is EXACTLY how many
people believe which or what the problem is that IS relevant...

>
>
> --
> 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
>

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: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:23:18 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recall of GA Chair

Kent and all assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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.

  They are two separate bodies as parts of the DNSO or Domain
Name supporting Organization.  The GA is the General Assembly,
in case you have forgotten what GA stands for.  The NC is the network
Council.  They are like the two houses of the US Congress to
use and comparison.

>  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 NC seems to have been and still remains to a degree the body
that needs some "Adult Supervision" as you put it, Kent.  However
this is a poor analysis not to mention just FUD.

>  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.

  The GA neither needs nor should have the NC managing it.  Rather the
NC needs the managing, and seemingly rather severely...

>  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.

  The rest of this (Above) is just FUD and politicking to discredit the chair
and most especially to discredit the GA members and it's existence
as an independent body.

>
>
> > 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.

  It is indeed a shame that you Kent would take this stance.  Indeed a number
of us have known however, that for some time going back to the IAHC and
the gTLD-MoU that you are against a bottoms-up approach and method
of the DNSO and the ICANN in general.

>
>
> > 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.

  Hogwash!  I don't know any of the NC members.  I do know a number
of the GA members however.

>
>
> -snip - remaining FUD/hogwash
>
> Kent
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
>

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: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 01:23:51 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC agenda and Recall of GA Chair

what are you talking about?

On 19:47 04/10/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>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!

Positively? it is Philip's response to Danny's mails on his NC management :-)

But from any evil some real good may result:

>>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?

What? under what?

I am lost 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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 19:22:59 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .info irregularities

Dotster finally got around to billing us for our .info domain registration,
which was added to our account.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network Inc.

- --
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 20:45:56 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Good, Bad or indifferent.

I and my dotcommoners rely on you folks,

Maybe our chair is bad, maybe we never make a difference, maybe we will
soon be
abandoned, the time we put in here is worthless.

Personally I think that is all a bunch of bunk.  We make a difference
our voices
are heard and life goes on.  This group has been the one overwhelmingly
alone
voice to curb abuse.  We make a difference.

I add to these addresses the board and ICANN in general and I ask any of
them who
monitor and pay attention to just drop us a note and say they are
listening.  They
will and they are and they do.  Ladies and Gentlemen, because we do not
always get
our way do not think we are not heard and considered and in fact make a
difference, we do.

To my beloved dotcommoners I wish you not to think that I suggest that
we are
always as radical as the picture i paint, only that that voice need be
heard in
order to make sure a reasonable point of view is acceptable and not
considered
radical.

Maybe three of four of our distinguished leaders, and they are that, are
arguing
what may look to be divisive points of view but they are all with us in
our fight
for proper and just representation on the Net.

May peace be with such diverse and wonderful views as set forth by the
Navajos and
Hopis and Hebrews, and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhist and agnostics and
atheists
and all Christianity and Islam.

Hey people we are really doing a great job, be happy.

Sincerely,
Eric

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > The GA has been absolutely unproductive since its inception, period. It
> > always has been. The DNSO NC isn't much better, as has been reported in
> > WG-Review. Where is this particular instance any different? This could lead
> > one to the conclusion that changing leadership would not improve things one
> > iota and that it would be, in fact, deconstructive.
> >
> > The real problem is that we have no focus because we, in fact, have nothing
> > credible to focus on.
>
> What he said.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                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
- --
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 21:57:16 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recall of GA Chair

Kent,

I actually had to give this a lot of thought.  Danged if I did not have to give it
some research, and then some more thought.

Do the special interests groups have more say than the assembly of the individuals
of all special interest groups?

If that is so then a restructuring is certainly in order.

A capture within one special interest group outlaws a voice for the dissent?
Restructure is in order.

The elite dictate the leadership of the individuals?  Restructure is in order.

Security of the mega corps co ops the rights of the consumers?  Restructure is in
order.

What open and transparent forum determined to change the format of the MDR
meeting?  If any nation pulled a stunt like this it would lose IMF, WTO, and BTA
status quicker than greased lightnin.

Are there any ISOs that apply to your ICANN?

All in all Kent your comments were correct within the given parameters of hell.

Eric

Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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

- --
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 01:07:45 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Use of ccTLDs as generics?

Dear Vany,

You had indicated that you will be speaking on "Use of ccTLDs as generics" 
(item #10) in the upcoming Names Council teleconference, but it now appears 
that you have changed the focus of your speech and wish to devote ten minutes 
to attacking New.net.  Why?

Vany wrote:  "Also I want to clarify the following point:

> 10. Use of ccTLDs as generics - Vany 
"The issue that I wanted to deal about was about companies that are offering 
domains under TLDs not created by ICANN, using a technolgy that allows them 
to masquerade existing domains to resolve domains under such TLDs.  I think 
that the NC should say a word in this issue because all DNS sectors 
represented in DNSO are affected.  And if even this is not under the power of 
ICANN to stop it, well, then at least that make that ICANN publicly make an 
statement about it with recommendations to the pertaining bodies that can 
deal about such activity better.  To be sincere, personally, I think is a 
fraud simply because the day that ICANN decides to grant the registry of a 
new TLD to a company different from the one that has being offering such 
TLD...the ones who registered domains names under such TLD simply loose the 
domain and probably the money.  I think this is a subject very different from 
use ccTLDs as generics, or lets say, better: marketing ccTLDs as generics.   
This was the concern of the .BIZ Registry in Montevideo." 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00311.html

"The concern I am pointing out and that was the one I told you in Montevideo 
and in an e-mail I wrote months before Montevideo is totally different:  It 
is about companies marketings TLDs as .TRAVEL,
.LOVE, .GAME, .VIAJES, .AMOR, .KIDS, etc, etc, etc....and technically 
resolving such TLDs by
masquerading with existent TLDs.  And as you may realized, none of such TLDs 
has being created,
recognized neither asigned by ICANN!!!.  I hope this clarifies better than 
before."  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00313.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 01:37:36 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  NC Structure TF

Dear members, 

I have received the following note from the DNSO Secretariat.  

Dear Danny,
Following the request from Philip Sheppard the [email-masked] list has been 
opened.  
Would please be so kind as to nominate a ga Representative to this task 
force.  Up to now the following people have been nominated.

"Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>obs/ initial chair
"Marilyn Cade" <[email-masked]> BC constit
"Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]> Registrars constit
"Elisabeth Porteneuve" <[email-masked]> ccTld consit
"Tony Holmes" <[email-masked]>ISP constit
"Mark Bonahan" <[email-masked]> IP constit
"David Johnson" <[email-masked]> gTLDs constit. 
The archives are in:
    http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/

Look forward to hearing from you.
DNSO Secretariat
- -------------------------

So far only Joop Teernstra has indicated an interest in participating in this 
"Structure" Task Force... if others have an interest, please let me know.  
Terms of Reference are cited at:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00022.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, 05 Oct 2001 02:05:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recall of GA Chair

Eric and all assembly members,

  Nicely stated and evaluated!  >;)  A bit on the dramatic side, but well
done none the less!  >;)

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Kent,
>
> I actually had to give this a lot of thought.  Danged if I did not have to give it
> some research, and then some more thought.
>
> Do the special interests groups have more say than the assembly of the individuals
> of all special interest groups?
>
> If that is so then a restructuring is certainly in order.
>
> A capture within one special interest group outlaws a voice for the dissent?
> Restructure is in order.
>
> The elite dictate the leadership of the individuals?  Restructure is in order.
>
> Security of the mega corps co ops the rights of the consumers?  Restructure is in
> order.
>
> What open and transparent forum determined to change the format of the MDR
> meeting?  If any nation pulled a stunt like this it would lose IMF, WTO, and BTA
> status quicker than greased lightnin.
>
> Are there any ISOs that apply to your ICANN?
>
> All in all Kent your comments were correct within the given parameters of hell.
>
> Eric
>
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --
> 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 #776
************************