Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #789
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, October 14 2001           Volume 01 : Number 789

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:

> It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
> it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
> on the basis of their technical expertise,

No, they were not, as the vast majority of the interim board was
completely(or near completely) technology ignorant with respects to the
DNS system. According to all the reports I recollect seeing the board was
selected precisely due to this ignorance, or more precisely ignorance of
the players/politics in the space.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:33:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Outreach

Danny and all assembly members,

  Thank you Danny for sharing this persons concerns with us here.
I am sure many here, including myself and a number of our
members share in this persons concerns.

  Perhaps this person would be willing to personally share his concerns
himself on the ALSC forum by subscribing?  I hope so!

As to the outreach situation.  I am glad that you Danny are reaffirming
Eric as the ambassador.  However I was under the understanding
that he was the leading this effort anyway, as part of WG-E.  I am
very pleased to see that yet again you wish to reaffirm this outreach
effort.  It is my and all of our members heart felt interest that
Eric's effort's to gain more participating stakeholders to this
forum as well as the ALSC forum as well.  Given however the
unofficial practice of the secretariat of not allowing other interested
parties or stakeholders form participating, I am sure this task
will be significant and require tremendous effort on Erics
part.  He has my and our members support.

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> I have received the following request from a participant to the ALSC Forum:
>
> In a couple of weeks I leave my current job in an internet cafe, which
> allowed me free access to the net and the opportunity to learn about ICANN.
> I expect now to have a maximum of 3 (three) hours access per week instead of
> an average of 3 (three) hours access a day, because I will have to pay for
> it.  Even then I am one of the privileged few.  If you are willing to pass on
> matters of concern in ICANN to me, I can guarantee that fifty people in
> Zambia will have that information forwarded to them.  Marginalised does not
> equal Disinterested as has been implied on this forum.  Sorry to have picked
> on you, but it had to be someone.  If it is one cross too many to bear,
> please pass this request on to another who shares our concerns.
>
> Thanks in Advance
> Malele
>
> As we consider the recommendations advanced by the At-Large Study Committee,
> I would ask all of you to reflect upon Malele's comments.   There are many
> stakeholders in this world that do not enjoy the many advantages that we
> often take for granted, and we in the General Assembly (as advocates for
> inclusiveness and greater representation) have a moral obligation to commit
> ourselves to actualizing outreach and global awareness.
>
> I am reminded of the recommendations of Working Group E:
>
> The goal should be to create materials that address particular needs of those
> who are prepared to receive and use the information.
>
> 1.  Simplicity will facilitate the widest possible distribution across the
> very diverse population to be reached. Simplicity will make it easier to
> translate materials into different languages as well as to distribute them
> via various means of communication.  Simplicity will also facilitate the
> processes of distributing information quickly and making it easily understood
> and absorbed.
>
> 2.  Customization of information material to local community needs will
> improve the effectiveness of           outreach. Customization can include
> translation into native languages, integration of information into
> familiar settings (e.g., web pages, local newsletters), etc.
>
> 3.  Central control of the content of information materials will reduce the
> likelihood of intended messages being distorted as they are distributed to
> different audiences and via different modes of communication.
>
> 4.  Outreach materials will be ignored if the content is not reliable and
> accurate.
>
> As we are all aware, our Names Council has never acted upon the
> recommendations of Working Group E, neither do they wish (as indicated by
> their Interim Review Task Force Report) to spend any DNSO funds to facilitate
> the translation of ICANN documents...  but we in the Assembly cannot ignore
> such a heartfelt plea.  We have an obligation, a duty, to "pick up the cross"
> and to do that which must be done.  It is time to end the lip-service given
> to outreach and to become pro-active.
>
> I am therefore enacting the following:
>
> 1.  The establishment of a permanent General Assembly Outreach committee.  To
> chair this committee, I am appointing Eric Dierker (if he will accept),
> because Eric has long-demonstrated a steadfast commitment to worldwide
> outreach.
>
> 2.  The Outreach Committee will be asked to convene an Editorial Board that
> will be responsible for aggregating Assembly views and matters of concern in
> ICANN into a regularly published digest.
>
> 3.  The Outreach Committee will secure volunteers that will translate the
> output of the Editorial Board, and key ICANN documents, into a variety of
> languages.
>
> 4.  The Outreach Committee will designate a webmaster.
>
> 5.  To facilitate this outreach I will donate my own website, icannworld.org
> for the exclusive use of the Outreach Committee (which will redesign the site
> as they see fit).
>
> We can make this work.  We have the talent.  We have the motivation.  We
> understand our duty.
>
> I look forward to your participation in this project, and wish to personally
> thank Malele for exhibiting such a strong commitment to the ICANN process.
>
> Danny Younger
> Chair, General Assembly of the DNSO
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:56:13 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
> > it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
> > on the basis of their technical expertise,
>
> No, they were not, as the vast majority of the interim board was
> completely(or near completely) technology ignorant with respects to the
> DNS system. According to all the reports I recollect seeing the board was
> selected precisely due to this ignorance, or more precisely ignorance of
> the players/politics in the space.

Yes, I've heard that quite a few times before, and in quoting Amadeu, as
I re-read what I wrote it would seem to give rather more of an impression
that I was fully buying into what he said than I really intended. But what
credence can be given to his explanation of why no thought was given to
including an SO or whatever for individuals?  That is, they had no technical
functions to perform hence they needed no representation?

And back to the first issue, it was not my intent in referring to "technical
expertise" to include the DNS, but only protocols and wiring and all that
good hardware/software engineering bag.  If it was the intent to haul in
DNS ignoramuses as "dupes," what was the motive? And who did it?
And for what purpose? To sandbag through a system as fully favorable
to Network Solutions as possible? Hmm???

Bill Lovell

Bill

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

- --

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: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:46:48 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> Except that this was never true.  How is a business group or an IP group a
> technical constituency?  It isn't and never was.
>
> Much as I like Amadeu, this is revisionism.  But it isn't credible.
>
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > Skipping past the personality issues, I think a bit of history will help
> > explain the dilemma in which those who want an individual domain
> > name holders constituency faces, and this background comes from

[and more blah, blah, blah.]

As I told someone else, it was not my intent to endorse what Amadeu
said, although what I wrote kind of reads like that.  (I take IP above
to mean Intellectual Property and not Internet Protocol.) But in any
case, you're right. Amadeu's sole little squib into the election process
was evidently all it took -- or was all of that preordained in any case?
It seems certain that the GA's input into the election was utterly ignored.

Bill

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:57:11 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

Some wonderful philanthropic person fill this neophyte in on the issue of technical
and the DNSO.  I cannot find a reference to it anywhere.

There are two other SOs and they are technical and they do not have a GA.  Perhaps
they should or should not, I don't know.  While they may assume that I do not have a
clue regarding epp and Ipv6 I may assume they have no desire to understand the Hague
Convention or read the US Senates' 121 page new anti terrorist bill to determine it's
impact on the internet, which is plenty.

Here, we are not controlled by technical truths we are curbed by them.  All of the
policy in the world can not put the inane release of the gTLDs back together again,
but had the other two SOs been properly consulted that Humpty Dumpty need never of
fallen off the wall.

I spent a decade on the policy side of public health, and I understand a broad
spectrum Antibiotic can deal with cutaneous Anthrax and I know enough to let the
Doctors decide that and work my butt off to get regs and the dough they need to
effectuate response, but they have to understand that the dudes and dudettes with the
dough do not want to hear about the micro biological aspects of rejection and/or
morphing.

So our real problem is that the ICANN is run by folks who do not care a twit about
outcome and the only security they are concerned with is Job Security = Power.  Hence
the point of Toutons' declaration in the Smiley injunction "we have the right to
dictate terms but no social responsibility when we are wrong".  If there is any true
fault with American values it is that. Brett is right on this issue, but ICANN is
irresponsible.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- SCHMIDNO -- no such thing.

As the Chairman of the initial Steering Committee for the IDNO I can say
unequivicably that there NEVER WAS an IDNO - only Joop Teernstra and his
"Optical Illusion", as he puts it. 

Joop's 'Optical illusion' was to create, unbeknownst to even it's trusting
and duly elected Steering Committee members, a springboard from which he
could launch his campaign to secure himself a seat on the Names Council.

That's why a highly cooperative and harmonious organization called
IDNO/CyberSpace Association incinerated itself in a phenomena known as
the 'Polar Wars', along with assurances from the darkside of ICANN that
there would never be an IDNO as long as Teernstra was IDNO's puppetmaster.

Unfortunately, even then Joop didn't give up the ghost and since then
when he had the opportunity to enjoy overhwelming popular support for
a motion to convert IDNO to an advocacy group he sabotaged that as well as
the only person with the keys to IDNO - on organization which is still
owned and operated in a tyranical fashion by one man with only the facade
of democratic process.

But then again, had Joop embraced this proposal to convert the
IDNO/CyberSpace Association to an advcacy group  - and he was the only
one to oppose this for the most part - he would have guaranteed that he
would never take a seat on the Names Council. Hm......  

Methinks people apply too much time and effort into things which make no
difference in the grand scheme of things. ICANN, much like racial
prejudice, happens to be one of those problems that eventually ceases to
exists once people stop feeding it with their power of thought.

By debating the insignificant you give rise to its power - by lacking to
acknowledge it's illegally and felonious so-called authority you
emasculate it. My advice would be to build something better instead of
this futile attempt to reform an organization that from its very inception
was designed to be the antithesis of a free Internet. Lord knows you've
all expended enough effort to perform this task ten times ;)

For usurpation to succeed it demands the attention and acknowledgement of
those it threatens to subjugate under it's tyranny. You are attempting the
coronation of a destroyer of people. You might consider tattooing 666
backards on your foreheads so you can remind yourselves whenever you brush
your teeth.

Duh!

<Felonius_Act>
# ICANN to TLD Holder: Yes we think an illegal lottery is an excellent
# way to extort moneys, and we give you permission to engage with it.
# BTW, you do know that by giving you permission we absolve ourselves 
# from any wrongdoing as a result of conspiring and commiserating with
# you in this felonious act, don't you? 
</Felonius_Act>
 
- --

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:22:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

	Amadeu (whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.

	I think Bill Lovell is referring to
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html>.  What Amadeu said
there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place for
functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
representation because they were considered to play a functional role, and
that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
coexist in a single constituency.  The IPC, he suggests, was added not
because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable given
the "IP-DN question on the table."  He goes on to suggest that an
individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would be
either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
constituencies already exist."  I don't happen to agree with him, but he
plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should have
no role" argument.

Jon

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> Except that this was never true.  How is a business group or an IP group a
> technical constituency?  It isn't and never was.
> Much as I like Amadeu, this is revisionism.  But it isn't credible.
> 
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > Skipping past the personality issues, I think a bit of history will help
> > explain the dilemma in which those who want an individual domain
> > name holders constituency faces, and this background comes from
> > some material posted by Amadeu Abril i Abril in the context of the
> > recent election. He pointed out that ICANN was to be a technical
> > body, and the original SOs were defined in terms of their technical
> > function. The purpose was to set up, operate, and maintain a
> > properly functioning internet system, including a domain name
> > system, and that was all.  Consequently, no thought was given to
> > any representation by users, domain name holders, or the like,
> > since they had no technical role to perform, but only to make use
> > of whatever ICANN created.
> > 
> > Mr Abril i Abril then went on to discuss the "policy" scene, and
> > expressed some amusement over the fact that we GA types were
> > (a) forever agitating over "mission creep" -- ICANN was getting
> > itself into policy issues -- while (b) at the same time forever advancing
> > policy issues ourselves out of the GA. We've had numerous instances
> > of ICANN's policy activities, of course, but the latest definitive evidence
> > of its stance on the matter comes from Joe Sims.
> > 
> > Karl Auerbach has correctly noted before that Joe Sims does not
> > speak for ICANN, but in this case Sims expresses correctly the
> > ICANN stance.  As most of you may know, Prof. Froomkin had
> > published a seminal paper some time back that questioned the
> > whole legitimacy of ICANN.  Last Friday, I attended the Seventh
> > Annual Lewis & Clark Law Forum, at Northwestern College of
> > Law of Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon, which had the
> > title "Deciding ICANN Domain Name Disputes: Questioning
> > Delegation, Fairness, and Consent," and a final paper included
> > in the proceedings was a Working Draft by Joe Sims and Cynthia
> > L. Bauerly (neither was present) entititled "A Response to
> > Professor Froomkin: Why ICANN Does Not Violate the APA
> > or the Constitution."  I recite all of that just to set out the following
> > quote from that draft: "ICANN has a very important function --
> > to manage what is essentially the phone book of the Internet, and
> > to make policy decisions relating to it."
> > 
> > In short, ICANN (i.e., the BoD, NC, etc.) is having its cake
> > and eating it.  On the one hand, it was formulated as a technical
> > body and hence no consideration was given to mere Internet
> > users or domain name holders, since they had no technical
> > duties to perform, but on the other hand ICANN itself has
> > presumed to absorb unto itself all kinds of policy issues that
> > go quite beyond those technical matters that initially required
> > only technology-related SOs.  It is thus no wonder that any
> > attempt to form an individuals constituency of any kind is met
> > with what appears to be mere disinterest, but is more likely
> > a concerted opposition.
> > 
> > It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
> > it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
> > on the basis of their technical expertise, and rightly so since
> > there was in fact a fully functional, global Internet that came
> > out of that.  But nothing suggests that any such persons had
> > any special expertise in deciding global socio-economic,
> > political, and other human-related issues as are involved in
> > a global Internet policy. With Karl Auerbach (also an attorney)
> > being the only exception I know of, the present BoD remains
> > in the original "technocrat" mold.  The GA of the DNSO, on
> > the other hand, has within it people from every imaginable
> > walk of life, albeit it, too, has its share of technocrats whose
> > political naivete is demonstrated on the GA lists every day.
> > So what we are left with is an ICANN that seems essentially
> > to be run by its business-related lawyers, the technocrats
> > therein blindly following their guidance, while the one real
> > source of that broad, people-related perspective that is most
> > essential for the development of an Internet that would serve
> > the public, as the Charter and the USG documents require,
> > has no voice whatever and indeed is actively opposed. (It
> > is no wonder that ICANN suddenly dumps everything else
> > so as to take up the technical issue of security -- that is a
> > field within which the BoD will be more comfortable, and
> > so let the users and domain name holders eat cake.)
> > 
> > At this stage in the evolution of ICANN, it will only be
> > through the development of a structure wherein domain
> > name holders and users have a dominant voice in setting
> > those global policies that directly affect them that ICANN
> > can even pretend to act for the public good, and at present
> > it is only the GA (and hopefully soon the At Large) and the
> > broad-based expertise that these people represent that can
> > demonstrate the reality-based perspective on global policies
> > that is essential for the future functioning of the Internet.
> > But don't hold your breath.
> > 
> > Bill Lovell
> > 
> > 
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > ...but let's talk for a moment about how this cause may be moved forward.  On
> > > October 4, I sent the following note to the Council:
> > >
> > > With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in
> > > Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and
> > > further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also
> > > commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance
> > > with Bylaws."   As the current Interim report of the Review Task Force does
> > > not appear to offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation of such a
> > > constituency, perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following
> > > language:
> > >      "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals constituency
> > > and the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals in the
> > > ICANN process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> > > resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency upon its
> > > own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation, and
> > > would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00094.html
> > >
> > > The Council (as could be expected) has taken no action whatsoever to develop
> > > a reasonable proposal on behalf of individuals even after sustained
> > > encouragement.  They have once more, in their latest teleconference, chosen
> > > to again ignore the issue.  The only action taken thus far has been the
> > > proposal of "criteria" in the Interim Review Task Force Report that is
> > > clearly designed to keep new constituencies out.
> > >
> > > Those of you that seek to establish a constituency will need to address this
> > > issue.  And you will need to do it now -- the public comment period has just
> > > opened and it will not be open for long.
> > >
> > > Even after you present your Charter/petition to the Board, you will still
> > > need to await the Council's input to the Board on your petition.  That
> > > "input" will be based on this bogus "criteria" unless you act now to thwart
> > > the machinations of those whose goal is nothing less than to deny your
> > > successful application.
> > >
> > > The Review report is in:
> > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html
> > >
> > > Comments may be posted to:  [email-masked]
> > >
> > > The Council is not your friend.  You represent a threat to the balance of
> > > their power-clique.  You will need to fight them on this issue and break down
> > > their barriers to entry if you seek to make any forward   progress.  Good
> > > luck in your endeavors, and I certainly hope that your petition to the Board
> > > will be presented in Marina del Rey.  Best wishes to all of you.
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 		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
> 

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 15:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:

> It seems certain that the GA's input into the election was utterly ignored.
> 
> Bill
> 

Again.....

	DUH !!!!

Come on people! Wakey Wakey here!

Thy shackles doth secured by thyself :)

- --

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 19:21:34 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Improvement of streaming video archives (feedback requested)

For the past three years, Berkman Center staff have provided streaming video
archives of webcast ICANN meeting sessions.  To date, web-based display of
these archives has been reasonably crude -- we have posted the streaming
video files as well as other archive materials (scribe's notes, PowerPoint
slides and documents shown, etc.), but we have left archive viewers on their
own to review and combine these materials as needed.

In another context, Berkman Center staff have developed a web-based system
whereby streaming media is synchronized with the display of web pages in a
web browser, allowing the display of web pages as desired throughout a
streaming video clip.  We seek comments from those in this forum on the
question of whether this system or another like it would be helpful --
presumably, useful in synchronizing the display of slides, documents,
scribe's notes, or other content along with archived streaming video of an
ICANN meeting.

At this time, a single video session is available to demonstrate this
technology -- namely, the New TLDs session from last year's Berkman
Center-sponsored Pressing Issues II conference (November 12, 2000).  The
demonstration is at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000/sync> (available also
from the Archive session within
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/pressingissues2000>).  Note that this
system is in preliminary testing form at this time, and has been tested to
date only with the Internet Explorer web browser.

We would appreciate feedback from those on this list -- either via
discussion here (to the extent it's relevant to questions of transparency of
ICANN meeting archives generally) or off-list (re specific technical
questions or glitches, unrelated ideas, etc.).

(Existing ideas for improvement: Advance notification when right frame
display is about to change.  Optional auto-pause of video at designated
points, perhaps controlled via a checkbox or other toggle.  Easier access to
web page URLs for subsequent reference as desired.)

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 20:42:26 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

- --------------FD8A52054903AD73F2A3685F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>         Amadeu (whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
> him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.
>
>         I think Bill Lovell is referring to
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html>.  What Amadeu said
> there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place for
> functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
> representation because they were considered to play a functional role, and
> that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
> constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
> coexist in a single constituency.  The IPC, he suggests, was added not
> because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable given
> the "IP-DN question on the table."  He goes on to suggest that an
> individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would be
> either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
> constituencies already exist."  I don't happen to agree with him, but he
> plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should have
> no role" argument.
>
> Jon

Ah, but read on to this (and that indeed was what I was referring to -- thank you
for digging it out):

> But I don't see "individual"as a "function" compared to "registry" or "commercial
>        registrants" or "non-commercial registrant".
>

I believe that is what I said he said: essentially, individuals had no function and
thus needed no representation. Those "functions," I believe, are technical
functions, since he also says that the IPC was added even though it had no
"function" in that sense  (i.e., in the same way that individuals had no function).
So he plainly did make that argument, whatever he may have intended.

Bill Lovell

- --------------FD8A52054903AD73F2A3685F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Amadeu
(whom I also like) didn't make the statements attributed to
<br>him in this thread, so the revisionism isn't his.
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I think Bill Lovell is referring
to
<br>&lt;<a href="http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html">http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00384.html</a>>.&nbsp;
What Amadeu said
<br>there was that "the original design of the DNSO was to provide a place
for
<br>functional interests in DNS to be represented," that "users" got
<br>representation because they were considered to play a functional role,
and
<br>that the user group was separated into commercial and noncommercial
<br>constituencies because the two groups were seen as too different to
<br>coexist in a single constituency.&nbsp; The IPC, he suggests, was added
not
<br>because it played a functional role, but because it was unavoidable
given
<br>the "IP-DN question on the table."&nbsp; He goes on to suggest that
an
<br>individuals' constituency is unnecessary because "an individual would
be
<br>either a commercial or non-commecial user, or both, and such
<br>constituencies already exist."&nbsp; I don't happen to agree with him,
but he
<br>plainly isn't making the "ICANN is a technical body so users should
have
<br>no role" argument.
<p>Jon</blockquote>

<p><br>Ah, but read on to this (and that indeed was what I was referring
to -- thank you
<br>for digging it out):
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>But I don't see "individual"as a "function" compared to "registry" or "commercial
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; registrants" or "non-commercial registrant".</pre>
</blockquote>

<p><br>I believe that is what I said he said: essentially, individuals
had no function and
<br>thus needed no representation. Those "functions," I believe, are technical
<br>functions, since he also says that the IPC was added even though it
had no
<br>"function" in that sense&nbsp; (i.e., in the same way that individuals
had no function).
<br>So he plainly did make that argument, whatever he may have intended.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------FD8A52054903AD73F2A3685F--

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 20:45:54 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

PacificRoot Hostmaster wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > It seems certain that the GA's input into the election was utterly ignored.
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
> Again.....
>
>         DUH !!!!
>
> Come on people! Wakey Wakey here!
>
> Thy shackles doth secured by thyself :)
>
> --
>
> Bradley D. Thornton
> Chief Technology Officer
> The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
> http://www.PacificRoot.com
> http://www.JointTech.com

I just love it when a response has nothing but cute phrases in
it, with no attempt whatever to address the issue. If one does
not agree with whatever, if one is to use up electrons one
might really say why, since such handwaving communicates
nothing to the discussion -- if any discussion was actually
wanted.

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: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 23:17:51 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Idno-discuss] Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

Mr. Greenwell and all assembly members or IDNO'ers,

  Mr. Greenwell is absolutely correct here.  NONE or the Interim ICANN
BoD had any knowledge base of the DNS.  Nor did any of them
have any knowledge base in IP protocol technology.  And of the
current BoD members today only 2 or 3 do now.

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > It is a matter of power, and if one wants to see irony, here
> > it is: the original "technocrats" I would assume were selected
> > on the basis of their technical expertise,
>
> No, they were not, as the vast majority of the interim board was
> completely(or near completely) technology ignorant with respects to the
> DNS system. According to all the reports I recollect seeing the board was
> selected precisely due to this ignorance, or more precisely ignorance of
> the players/politics in the space.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                  "There should be warning labels for politicians."
>                             --  Derek Smalls
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idno-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss

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 #789
************************