Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #799
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, October 18 2001          Volume 01 : Number 799

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

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:48:56 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

After rereading this for the umpteenth time it hit me that this was
exactly correct.

If we removed the DN issues from ICANN and set them up in a different
Organization for just that purpose and signed a contract with DoC for
just that purpose.  Then everyone would be in a better position to
accomplish matters.  Perhaps it is not possible to have the same plant
produce sardines and autos simultaneously.

You know it never even occurred to Postel that the names would be so
huge.  In fact the phenom is only about three years old.

Food for thought, and please do not eat the waiter.

"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.
- --
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, 18 Oct 2001 16:52:53 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees

I agree on the need to move quickly, and also believe that, although 
sometimes in the past we went through elections, this was not formally 
necessary.
However, I would like to see a show of hands in favour of David by GA 
members, I believe that this show of support will psychologically ease his 
task, and be a record for the future.

May I start with showing my agreement with the choice of person, and invite 
some "me too" messages from GA members?

Thanks
Roberto

(I leave the original message, as some time has passed and people might have 
forgotten what the subject was)

>
>Dear Peter,
>
>On occasion, it is necessary to move quickly on some matters.  In the case 
>of
>your particular constituency, the name of Peter Dengate-Thrush was 
>forwarded
>to the Council as the representative to the NC structure Task Force within
>days of the TF being formed.  I doubt that your constituency either 
>convened
>an election process or had Peter confirmed or endorsed for this Task Force 
>by
>a substantial number of those active on the ccTLD list within the course of
>just a few days.
>
>I have full faith in the ability of these members to properly represent the
>GA in an NC Task Force (to the same degree that you and Elisabeth have
>confidence in Peter).   Both individuals (if they accept) will be chairs of
>committees in which the views of the Assembly will come to be ascertained.
>As both are responsible and can articulate positions well, there is no need
>to further delay the GA's entry into these Task Forces.
>
>
>
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
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, 18 Oct 2001 18:58:50 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

On 16:32 18/10/01, Eric Dierker said:
>Never feel a need to justify your good works.

No justification intended. But coordination is of the essence. Public 
coordination is also a way to tease the adversary showing open 
confidence.  Mike "suspects" my positions are not supported. I have no 
position: I just call for a gentlemen respect of the rules and he can 
easily "know". Just permiting a debate or call for a vote.

The ICANN goes berserk, you can understand that he is emotional about it.
Cheers.
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, 18 Oct 2001 17:11:18 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement

My 2c on this as well.

I don't believe we have any statutory obligation for an AltChair, just for 
the Chair.
The AltChair position was created just because the amount of work for the 
Chair could be too much, in particular in a situation of volounteering 
labour: in the beginning I knew, for instance, that I could not have had the 
possibility to attend all meetings, and it was nice to have an alter-ego to 
split the job. Although it would have been perfectly legitimate to appoint 
the AltChair, we decided (before the elections) that to pick the two most 
voted would have been a better solution.

This said, what does this mean?
The Chair has all rights, IMHO, to appoint an AltChair. Elections are 
necessary only if the Chair has reason to believe that he himself will be 
unable to finish the mandate, which does not seem to be the case. Obviously, 
a show of support by the GA to the AltChair might help (should the Chair opt 
for appointing an AltChair, as he might decide to continue alone until the 
end of the mandate).

Incidentally, we might start thinking ahead of time about the next election: 
it might be good not to miss the deadline by several months as it did happen 
the previous time.
Would it be an appropriate target date to have the voting process to go on 
Jan+Feb 2002, and the responsibility transfered from the outgoing to the 
incoming Chair at the end of the physical meeting in Accra (10-14 March 
2002)?

Regards
Roberto

>From: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [ga] Alt.Chair Replacement
>Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 17:33:11 EDT
>
>Dear members,
>
>We have received the following query from the Names Council:
>
>Danny,
>following the resignation of the alt chair, what action do you propose
>taking? Will you be holding new elections or looking at the previous 
>election
>for the next person on the list?
>
>Philip Sheppard
>NC Chair
>
>As the General Assembly's rules do not offer sufficient guidance in this
>area, it is appropriate that the membership discuss this matter.  In 
>essence,
>do we promote Eric Dierker to the position of Alt. Chair, or do we convene
>new elections?  Is there justification for the Chair to appoint a temporary
>Alt. Chair until the elections are held (if we decide that elections are
>warranted?)  Let me know your thoughts so that we can move forward
>accordingly.  Thank 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
>

_________________________________________________________________
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, 18 Oct 2001 13:15:19 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] IDNO -- This affects you.

Eric and all IDNO'ers,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> After rereading this for the umpteenth time it hit me that this was
> exactly correct.

  In essence yes it is!  ICANN should stick to the technical knitting.
Policy issues are obviously not it's forte.  But it is way too late for
that
now, unfortunately.  The political dogs of war are afoot.

>
>
> If we removed the DN issues from ICANN and set them up in a different
> Organization for just that purpose and signed a contract with DoC for
> just that purpose.  Then everyone would be in a better position to
> accomplish matters.  Perhaps it is not possible to have the same plant
> produce sardines and autos simultaneously.

  Well Sardines are not produced.  However, your point here anyway
is well taken.  Has been for some time now...

>
>
> You know it never even occurred to Postel that the names would be so
> huge.  In fact the phenom is only about three years old.

  Yes Postel know in 1991 that this was going to be huge issue
at some point.  In addition this 'Phenom' as you put it has
been around for about 5+ years, not 3.  One has only to go
back to the creation for RFC 1591 and review the IAHC
and gTLD-MoU process to understand that clearly.

>
>
> Food for thought, and please do not eat the waiter.
>
> "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.
> --
> 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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:20:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees

Me too,

And I urge Mr. Younger to move forward as he deems prudent.

Eric

Hugh Blair wrote:

> +1 hand up.
>
> -Hugh
> ____________________________
> [email-masked]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
> Gaetano
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees
> >
> >
> > May I start with showing my agreement with the choice of person,
> > and invite some "me too" messages from GA members?
> >
>
> --
> 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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:24:45 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees

Roberto and all assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> I agree on the need to move quickly, and also believe that, although
> sometimes in the past we went through elections, this was not formally
> necessary.

  It was if you want to have a formal record, and not get screaming
participants claiming that such a determination is invalid due to
lack of a formal process.  As you know, this has happened
too many times now, and as a result has created distrust
that is now very difficult to overcome, if even possible.

>
> However, I would like to see a show of hands in favour of David by GA
> members, I believe that this show of support will psychologically ease his
> task, and be a record for the future.

  Not a good method for record keeping purposes.  With the disappearance
of selected archived E-Mail post during the IAHC fiasco and more
recently the complete removal of all the Domain-Policy ML archives
is a blatant example of why this is a poor idea.  In fact as has been
pointed out, it is likely that the DNSO itself may disappear or at least
the GA.  Given that as now at least openly discussed, a more formal
method seem both prudent and wise for the sake or accountability
and historical record keeping purposes alone.

>
>
> May I start with showing my agreement with the choice of person, and invite
> some "me too" messages from GA members?

  I seem to recall you complaining about "me too" posts!  >:)  Change
of heart here Roberto???

>
>
> Thanks
> Roberto
>
> (I leave the original message, as some time has passed and people might have
> forgotten what the subject was)
>
> >
> >Dear Peter,
> >
> >On occasion, it is necessary to move quickly on some matters.  In the case
> >of
> >your particular constituency, the name of Peter Dengate-Thrush was
> >forwarded
> >to the Council as the representative to the NC structure Task Force within
> >days of the TF being formed.  I doubt that your constituency either
> >convened
> >an election process or had Peter confirmed or endorsed for this Task Force
> >by
> >a substantial number of those active on the ccTLD list within the course of
> >just a few days.
> >
> >I have full faith in the ability of these members to properly represent the
> >GA in an NC Task Force (to the same degree that you and Elisabeth have
> >confidence in Peter).   Both individuals (if they accept) will be chairs of
> >committees in which the views of the Assembly will come to be ascertained.
> >As both are responsible and can articulate positions well, there is no need
> >to further delay the GA's entry into these Task Forces.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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

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, 18 Oct 2001 12:36:49 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees

I noticed:  this year Peter Dengate-Thrush, [email-masked], has 
posted about four comments to the  DNSO GA.

At 04:52 PM 10/18/2001 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>I agree on the need to move quickly, and also believe that, although 
>sometimes in the past we went through elections, this was not formally 
>necessary.
>However, I would like to see a show of hands in favour of David by GA 
>members, I believe that this show of support will psychologically ease his 
>task, and be a record for the future.
>
>May I start with showing my agreement with the choice of person, and 
>invite some "me too" messages from GA members?
>
>Thanks
>Roberto
>
>(I leave the original message, as some time has passed and people might 
>have forgotten what the subject was)
>
>
>>
>>Dear Peter,
>>
>>On occasion, it is necessary to move quickly on some matters.  In the case of
>>your particular constituency, the name of Peter Dengate-Thrush was forwarded
>>to the Council as the representative to the NC structure Task Force within
>>days of the TF being formed.  I doubt that your constituency either convened
>>an election process or had Peter confirmed or endorsed for this Task Force by
>>a substantial number of those active on the ccTLD list within the course of
>>just a few days.
>>
>>I have full faith in the ability of these members to properly represent the
>>GA in an NC Task Force (to the same degree that you and Elisabeth have
>>confidence in Peter).   Both individuals (if they accept) will be chairs of
>>committees in which the views of the Assembly will come to be ascertained.
>>As both are responsible and can articulate positions well, there is no need
>>to further delay the GA's entry into these Task Forces.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>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
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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

- --
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, 18 Oct 2001 15:15:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> I agree on the need to move quickly, and also believe that, although 
> sometimes in the past we went through elections, this was not formally 
> necessary.
> However, I would like to see a show of hands in favour of David by GA 
> members, I believe that this show of support will psychologically ease his 
> task, and be a record for the future.
> May I start with showing my agreement with the choice of person, and invite 
> some "me too" messages from GA members?

	I think David will be an excellent representative to this TF.

Jon

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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:55:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, at 15:15 [=GMT-0400], Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > I agree on the need to move quickly, and also believe that, although 
> > sometimes in the past we went through elections, this was not formally 
> > necessary.
> > However, I would like to see a show of hands in favour of David by GA 
> > members, I believe that this show of support will psychologically ease his 
> > task, and be a record for the future.
> > May I start with showing my agreement with the choice of person, and invite 
> > some "me too" messages from GA members?
> 
> 	I think David will be an excellent representative to this TF.
> 

So do I.

- -- 
[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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:00:58 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees

Thursday, Thursday, October 18, 2001, 12:55:03 PM, Marc Schneiders wrote:

>>       I think David will be an excellent representative to this TF.
>> 

> So do I.

Without reservation.

- -- 
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, 18 Oct 2001 16:25:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [DOMAIN POLICY] The Wait Continues For New Top-Level Domains (InternetNews.com)

All asslembly members,

- ------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article/0,,10_906271,00.html
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

NeuLevel Inc., which has been appointed the exclusive registry 
operator for the .BIZ top-level domain (TLD) by the Internet 
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), Thursday said 
that the .BIZ Registry will not go live until Wednesday, Nov. 7. The 
new TLD was previously scheduled to become effective on Oct. 23. 

The .BIZ TLD is the second of seven new TLDs to be added to the 
current system, which includes domains like .ORG, .NET, .EDU and the 
ever popular .COM as well as several country codes. The first new 
domain names, .INFO, went live this past summer but the rollout 
wasn't nearly as smooth as had been expected with the official .INFO 
registry, Afilias, needing to enlist the help of the World 
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to resolve disputes. 

"NeuLevel is taking extra care to ensure our systems will support the 
early go-live demand," said Doug Armentrout, CEO of NeuLevel, 
Inc. "Due to the significant recent market demand for the new TLDs, 
including .BIZ, we concluded that we needed extra time to test our 
systems in conjunction with our registrar channel partners. We are 
determined to turn up our live registry service with a system that 
can accept the market's demand, regardless of the amount of traffic 
generated." 

The new postponement represents the second delay for the .BIZ 
domains. Neulevel originally planned to rollout the TLD on Oct. 1 but 
pushed it back to Oct. 23 due to the business disruptions that 
followed the events of Sept. 11. 

The other new domains scheduled to be implemented by ICANN 
are: .name, .pro, .aero, .museum and .coop. 

Separately, ICANN on Thursday announced the appointment of the Museum 
Domain Management Association (MuseDoma) to oversee the operation of 
the .MUSEUM top-level domain. So, watch out MOMA!
- --
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, 18 Oct 2001 16:38:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

Joanna and all assembly members,

Joanna Lane wrote:

> Excellent work Roeland! It seems you have captured the GA consensus position
> in wording that would be perfect for a Motion or Motions by the GA on these
> issues.

  Indeed it is good work!  Well done Roeland!  I don't know if it
is a consensus position however.  We need to measure that to be
sure.  But putting up a motion is a good way of getting that ball
rolling!

> Since a formal Ballot is not possible at this time, I move that this
> wording be Recognized by the Chair for a Poll (the next best thing) and that
> a clean copy be re-submitted to this list, together with a notice to members
> of a set period of time for members to vote on their agreement or
> disagreement with the demands being made, and using a Time-Line that allows
> for the Results to be Reported by the GA to the NC-intake committee,
> together with a request for these items to be included in the Agenda as
> pressing issues for consideration.

  A poll is a good second option.  But only and option.  I would rather follow
your excellent "Best Practices" process Joanna!  >:)

> The vote Intake Committee list closes 21
> days prior to the next meeting. Supporting documentation may also be
> attached.

  Yes.  This route should also be explored or used as well...

>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
>
> ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION BY NC INTAKE COMMITTEE FOR INCLUSION IN AGENDA
> NOVEMBER 2001 NC MEETING:
>
> Members of the DNSO GA are demanding that:
>
> 1: The ICANN BoD instruct the DNSO/BC to stop excluding potential members
> > that are legally registered and constituted businesses for any reason. That
> > such practices have already caused irrepairable harm and minimum
> > compensatory action shall be to grant such membership, of previously
> > excluded members, at no charge, for a period equal to the time that such
> > exclusionary practices have been in effect (at least 3 years).
> >
> > 2: The ICANN place the DNSO/GA on equal footing with the current DNSO names
> > council, creating a bicameral DNSO. That the ICANN provide funding and
> > support for a secure voting mechanism that the GA can use for its consensus
> > building efforts. That the ICANN provide budget and staffing for the DNSO/GA
> > to perform its functions. That the DNSO/GA be given ICANN BoD seats, to be
> > filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA.
> > That  such funding be derived from a $1US surcharge, per domain name, per
> > year, from ICANN all registered domain names. That the GA shall have both an
> > Advocate and a Consensus Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with
> > budgetary control and responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.
> >
> > --
> > R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> > Managing Director
> > Morgan Hill Software Company
> > http://www.mhsc.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

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, 18 Oct 2001 14:39:21 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

Thursday, Thursday, October 18, 2001, 6:54:41 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Excellent work Roeland! It seems you have captured the GA consensus position
> in wording that would be perfect for a Motion or Motions by the GA on these

Consensus, Joanna?

I think not.

Perhaps you are suffering from some wishful thinking.  I have not seen
anything resembling a consensus on this issue yet.

- -- 
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, 18 Oct 2001 16:44:14 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Peace on Earth, NC and BC, please

Roeland and all assembly members,

  I don't agree with your #2 below.  But the format is a good one
none the less.  As Joanna pointed out quite rightly, a poll with
this as the motion in it's entirety is a good second option.  However
as I replied to Joanna's post, using the "Best Practices" approach
and the voting mechanism to document and verify historically, would
be much more preferable.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Hello Mike,
>
> Let me make this simpler for you.
>
> Whereas, the Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. is a Delaware registered
> corporation and qualifies as a small business, under US SBA guidelines (see:
> http://www.mhsc.com/legal.htm), since 1997.
>
> Whereas, MHSC is a common law trademark and brand of the Morgan Hill
> Software Company, Inc.
>
> Whereas, MHSC registers names in the non-ICANN TLDs of MHSC and VPN. Ergo,
> MHSC is a DNS SLD registry.
>
> Whereas, MHSC also carries TLDs, such as AtlanticRoot's BIZ, MHSC is also a
> TLD registry.
>
> Whereas, MHSC operates a non-ICANN controlled zone server network, including
> root authority.
>
> Whereas, MHSC distributes and publishes the MHSC root zone file via said
> zone server network and has sole authority over that network and its
> contents.
>
> Whereas, MHSC is restricted from joining the DNSO/BC specifically because
> MHSC is a registry.
>
> Whereas, MHSC is restricted from joining the DNSO/RC specifically because
> MHSC is a non-ICANN registry.
>
> Whereas, MHSC finds common cause with David Hernand, of New.Net
>
> Whereas, MHSC has its own dispute resolution mechanism and has no need of
> the UDRP.
>
> Whereas, MHSC has been such a registry for far longer than ICANN has even
> existed and doesn't plan to cease operation anytime soon.
>
> Whereas, MHSC supports Jefesy Morfin's efforts to bring about constructive
> change in the DNSO/BC but, considers those efforts to have a very low
> probability of success.
>
> Whereas, MHSC finds that ICANN is in violation of inclusiveness
> requirements, given by DOC MoU, signed in 1998.
>
> Whereas, MHSC finds that the DNSO/GA is the only all inclusive body for all
> ICANN domain name holders.
>
> Whereas, the ICANN BoD has previously established authority over the
> structure of the DNSO by creating the constituencies of the DNSO and that
> authority has never been recinded.
>
> MHSC demands that;
> 1: The ICANN BoD instruct the DNSO/BC to stop excluding potential members
> that are legally registered and constituted businesses for any reason. That
> such practices have already caused irrepairable harm and minimum
> compensatory action shall be to grant such membership, of previously
> excluded members, at no charge, for a period equal to the time that such
> exclusionary practices have been in effect (at least 3 years).
>
> 2: The ICANN place the DNSO/GA on equal footing with the current DNSO names
> council, creating a bicameral DNSO. That the ICANN provide funding and
> support for a secure voting mechanism that the GA can use for its consensus
> building efforts. That the ICANN provide budget and staffing for the DNSO/GA
> to perform its functions. That the DNSO/GA be given ICANN BoD seats, to be
> filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA.
> That  such funding be derived from a $1US surcharge, per domain name, per
> year, from ICANN all registered domain names. That the GA shall have both an
> Advocate and a Consensus Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with
> budgetary control and responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.
>
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> http://www.mhsc.com
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Mike Roberts [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:05 PM
> |>
> |> Jefsey - Both this message and its distribution are entirely out of
> |> order.  I hope that you will immediately retract it.
> |>
> |> As an SME member of the BC, the Darwin Group strongly objects to the
> |> positions advocated in your note.  I suspect that the chances of it
> |> receiving consensus support from other BC SME's, much less the full
> |> membership, are near zero.
> |>
> |> If you wish to promote your individual views of various courses of
> |> action, there are numerous avenues within the ICANN
> |> structure, all of
> |> which you seem to be intimately familiar with, through which to
> |> advocate them.
> |>
> |> - Michael M. Roberts
> |> Managing Director, The Darwin Group, Inc.
> |> DNSO/BC member
> |>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> At 8:52 PM +0200 10/17/01, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> |> >Ladies and Gentlemen from the NC,
> |> >Fellow Members from the DNSO/BC,
> |> >
> |> >whereas a letter from David Hernand from New.net has been sent to
> |> >the Members of the NC to escalate the denial of the DNSO/BC to
> |> >accept New.net as a Member while the logic of the given  reasons
> |> >seriously question the rights to Membership of a
> |> significant part of
> |> >the DNSO/BC Members and of two of its current NC representatives,
> |> >
> |> >whereas a mail form Danny Younger, Chair of the DNSO/GA, rises a
> |> >similar question on the right to DNSO/BC Membership of the third
> |> >DNSO/BC representative to the NC and the current NC Chair,
> |> >
> |> >whereas I have a reconsideration procedure known to many under way
> |> >due to the disrespect of the DNSO/BC "issue management
> |> rules". The a
> |> >document on root management which is supposed to bind and harm my
> |> >business has been published in spite of my formal opposition and my
> |> >call on rules. This call was denied any value and I was told it
> |> >could only be considered shold I betray the BC Members who would
> |> >vote against that text.
> |> >
> |> >whereas the DNSO/BC charter says  "secretariat [that] will be
> |> >elected by and among its members for a period of two years at a
> |> >time. The secretariat will assure that all procedures are followed,
> |> >that all necessary means to conduct the business of the
> |> constituency
> |> >are available and that independent elections take place in due time
> |> >for the secretariat as well as for other officers. Its functions
> |> >will include:
> |> >(i) Reviewing applications for membership in the Business
> |> >Constituency and, where appropriate, referring these to the
> |> >Credentials Committee.
> |> >(ii) Carrying out the administrative functions associated with the
> |> >operations of the Business Constituency, including the arrangement
> |> >of meetings, preparation and publication of minutes, maintenance of
> |> >an appropriate mechanism suitable for facilitating contact and
> |> >dissemination of information among all members of the Business
> |> >Constituency and other secretariat functions required for the
> |> >adequate functioning of the Business Constituency.
> |> >(iii) Facilitating and, where appropriate, formulating membership
> |> >consensus on policy issues for the purpose of advising the Business
> |> >Constituency representatives on the Names Council."
> |> >
> |> >whereas this secretariat has never been elected while it
> |> recently changed.
> |> >
> |> >whereas the DNSO/BC charter says: "With the exception of the
> |> >election of the first secretariat, which will be elected by the end
> |> >of September 1999, candidates for election as secretariat will be
> |> >nominated at the same time as the candidates for the Names Council,
> |> >and also voted at the same time and according to the same procedure
> |> >where relevant. The largest number of votes will elect the
> |> >secretariat.
> |> >2. The secretariat will be a member of the Constituency,
> |> and not a person.
> |> >3. Business constituency members may put themselves forward as
> |> >candidates to assume secretariat functions either as individual
> |> >entities to assume all secretariat functions as set out
> |> hereinafter,
> |> >or jointly with other members with a view to allocating such
> |> >functions among them. Nominations for secretariat must include a
> |> >budget for running the secretariat."
> |> >
> |> >whereas the DNSO/BC charter says
> |> >"The secretariat shall use their best efforts to give small and
> |> >medium-sized enterprises an adequate voice in all Business
> |> >Constituency work processes. These efforts may include, but not be
> |> >limited to, the organization of democratic elections for
> |> >representatives of organizations of small and medium sized
> |> >businesses (SMEs) to sit on an SME Consultative Committee whose
> |> >advice shall be solicited on substantive policy work items"
> |> >
> |> >whereas I have asked several times, receiving response neither from
> |> >the Secretariat nor from the NC representatives, that such an SME a
> |> >committee be set-up and a Chair elected,
> |> >
> |> >whereas I have polled end of 2000 the other SME Members, created a
> |> >informal committee which  approved me as a temporary Chair,
> |> reported
> |> >this to the Secretariat and maintained sustained relations with the
> |> >SME I know of.
> |> >
> |> >whereas the charter is published with the mention "a revised
> |> >Business Constituency Charter is currently under discussion",
> |> >
> |> >whereas no debate is under on the matter I am aware of,
> |> >
> |> >whereas the DNSO/BC is entered in a voting period and only called
> |> >for NC Representative nominations and not for Secretariat nor fpr
> |> >SME Committee Chair.
> |> >
> |> >
> |> >
> |> >1. I consider I am entitled to speak for the SMEs and
> |> entitled to be
> |> >heard as per the BC Charter.
> |> >
> |> >2. the DNSO/BC tansparency is currently not by the standard of an
> |> >ICANN Constituency.
> |> >
> |> >3. The Credential Commitee was not to consider New.net as it is a
> |> >business of good standing operating for more than one year.
> |> The true
> |> >reason known to all for the denial is the opposition of New.net to
> |> >ICP-3 and to the controverted BC position document on the matter.
> |> >
> |> >4. The current elections underway call for urgent stability: three
> |> >NC current representatives and 20% of the Members are
> |> questioned, so
> |> >are questionned the legitimacy of the NC and the recent election of
> |> >a DNSO Director obtained by one vote.
> |> >
> |> >5. the whole DNSO/BC image and credibility are endangered what all
> |> >of the BC paying Members would suffer from if this is not quickly
> |> >and fairly attended.
> |> >
> |> >
> |> >I propose that we all agree on the common sense following points:
> |> >
> |> >a) the current Secretariat will be confirmed through the coming
> |> >vote. I nominate it as per the charter.
> |> >
> |> >b) by the same token the SME Committee (the SME paying
> |> Members) will
> |> >elect their Chair.
> |> >
> |> >c) the DNSO/BC Mailing list will be set-up to permit the Members to
> |> >relate together
> |> >
> |> >d) the letter and the spirit of the charter will apply to the NC
> |> >representatives election:
> |> >
> |> >   - not two representatives form the same geographical area
> |> >   - one representatives being an SME
> |> >   - not two prepresentatives from the same business trade
> |> >
> |> >e) for trade definition
> |> >
> |> >     -  Telcos will be accepted as one trade,
> |> >     -  business and IP protection organizations will be
> |> accepted as one trade
> |> >     -  the main trade of the Member will be considered
> |> >
> |> >f)  New.net will be accepted as an SME Member
> |> >
> |> >e) a working group will be set-up to quickly present a revised
> |> >charter to the Members and to the BoD.
> |> >
> |> >f) that revised charter will establish a DNSO/BC Chair as approved
> |> >in Melbourne. His first missions will be to restore
> |> internal harmony
> |> >and to develop outreach.
> |> >
> |> >Jefsey Morfin
> |> >DNSO/BC/SME Member
> --
> 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 #799
************************