Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #800
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Friday, October 19 2001           Volume 01 : Number 800

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

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 00:13:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: Noble Cause

That's great!

But I haven't seen sunrise domains with Indian Trademarks so far. But I'm sure there are some bogus ones.

Simon

> --- Arbitrator Online <info@arbitratoronline.
> org> wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:52:28 +0530
> > From: Arbitrator Online 
> <[email-masked]>
> > Reply-to: Arbitrator Online 
> <[email-masked]>
> > Organization: Arbitrator Online
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Noble Cause
> > 
> > Hello Sanjeev,
> > 
> > We are offering free service to all Sunrise 
> Challengers for any
> > Indian Trademark search. We will pay all 
> expenses regarding the
> > search performed at TM office in India. It 
> will be a free service to
> > all of you. And you will get email response 
> in Two working days.
> > 
> > This is a small gesture we can show to all 
> those who want to
> > challenge the bogus and fraudulent 
> Registrant in .info.
> > 
> > And we also expect the similiar response, If 
> anybody can provide from
> > their country to all of us where the online 
> TM checking is not
> > possible. 
> > 
> > You can avail this facility at :
> > 
> > http://www.arbitratoronline.org
> > 
> > or email us with your TM to be checked 
> details at:
> > 
> > [email-masked]
> > 
> > Waiting for your response.
> > 
> > Your Friend in India.
> > 
> > Arbitrator Online. 
> >   
> > 
> >                        mailto:
> [email-masked]
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> ___
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.
> org 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 17:39:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding- And consensus woe's...

WXW, Joanna and all assembly members,

  I have to agree with WXW on this one.  Unless or until we can have
a vote a consensus is not likely to be validated.  "me too's" are nice,
and polls are better than "Me too's", but as we have a formal voting
mechanism WXW's claim here is perfectly valid.  Consensus does
not yet exist on this issue.  I do believe it will exist at some point
however.

William X Walsh wrote:

> 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

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 15:56:58 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:39 PM
|> 
|> 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.

Let me see if I understand you correctly here; You don't think that the
DNSO/GA wants a stronger presence in the ICANN?

Understand that I presented the demand as an MHSC demand, not a DNSO demand,
precisely because of uncertainty ,in detail, about DNSO/GA consensus.
However, I do believe that, in the large, I have outlined much of the GA's
desires. Items #2 is MHSC opinion of the degree of repair needed to the DNSO
structure. Implementation details may vary, along with your mileage. I might
also state that my confidence level of any part of the demands being met, is
quite low. I consider the demand to be more declaratory/preparatory in
nature. If the ICANN BoD meets any part of MHSC's demands then the whole
DNSO effort moves forward, IMHO. If they don't, then the DNSO dies, also
IMHO. Failure of the ICANN to at least consider the demands, by itself, will
be a declaration of intent by the ICANN, towards the DNSO, and we can all
stop wasting our time, both here and in MdR.

What I am absolutely certain of is that, DNSO dysfunctionality requires
ICANN BoD intervention of precisely the degree which I have outlined in the
MHSC demand. The problems outlined had been extant from the start and all
attempts to remedy them internally to the DNSO have, thus far, failed.
Further, such efforts will continue to fail. The DNSO track-record is quite
clear on that point.

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

In the whole, I think you are wrong. While many may differ in opinions over
details, there has been near universal agreement that the GA needs a larger
voice than it currently has and that the DNSO, as constituted, is failing
its mission objectives (should we ever agree as to what the DNSO mission
objectives are), has been failing it's mission objectives from the very
start, and cannot ever meet any sort of mission objectives in the future.
- --
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 16:17:45 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

Thursday, Thursday, October 18, 2001, 3:56:58 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|>> Consensus, Joanna?
|>> 
|>> I think not.

> Let me see if I understand you correctly here; You don't think that the
> DNSO/GA wants a stronger presence in the ICANN?

Your document is only loosely based on that, the points about new.net
for instance do not belong in a statement that is dealing with the
GA's presence in ICANN, and will only serve to add contention to it.

> Understand that I presented the demand as an MHSC demand, not a DNSO demand,

I know, I was responding to Joanna's claim that your document
represented a consensus of the position of the GA.  That is not an
appropriate characterization at this stage.

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

> In the whole, I think you are wrong. While many may differ in opinions over
> details, there has been near universal agreement that the GA needs a larger
> voice than it currently has and that the DNSO, as constituted, is failing
> its mission objectives (should we ever agree as to what the DNSO mission
> objectives are), has been failing it's mission objectives from the very
> start, and cannot ever meet any sort of mission objectives in the future.

On the above paragraph, we agree.  But your points are still not at
the level of a consensus of the GA.

If we had a chair, then the points could be separated out individually
and discussed, reworded where neeeded, and it could eventually become
a stating point for a consensus document.

But that would be working within the structure of ICANN and the DNSO
NC, which our "chair" refuses to do, so it really will never become a
consensus document.

Pity, because I agree with much of what you said, but I'm not so sure
I agree with the new.net stuff.  I'd have to discuss that with you
more in an environment meant to bring about consensus.

I wish we had such a place.

- -- 
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 19:08:50 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

on 10/18/01 5:39 PM, William X Walsh at [email-masked] wrote:

> 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.

You are correct. In mitigation, I would say that at this stage of the game,
wishful thinking is a result, but I still think these are pressing issues
that should be addressed by the NC. Can we agree on that at least?

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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, 19 Oct 2001 12:35:57 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees, MOTION

On 21:55 18/10/01 +0200, Marc Schneiders said:
>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.

Contrary to the previous speakers and with my apologies to David, wich whom 
I will have to deal peacefully on the InternetNZ Council,  I must note my 
reservations about the procedure which is used to propel David Farrar to 
the position of "representative of the GA" on this very sensitive task force.

The Chair appoints: does this set a precedent? There are no rules about 
what a Chair of the GA can do and cannot do.

It is one of the problems of cyber democracy that we run the risk of 
nominating and electing people that we barely know.
(nothing personal Danny)
How well do you really know the Chair that you have so blithely elected?
What if some future trusted nominator of a Chair is going to be mistaken in 
his judgement and we get a Chair who is not what he seems?

Then (sorry Roberto) : is this method of open outcry of support appropriate 
and democratic? Does this not disadvantage voters who may feel 
uncomfortable with what is happening on principle, but do not want to be 
seen as spoilers by saying so?
Is this not why democratic systems have secret ballots?

I would like to see a proper election of one of all the candidates, so that 
*all* GA voters get their say on who is going to represent them on this 
task force.

MOTION to the Chair: please do not be rushed by any imposed deadlines but 
take the time for a proper election.
If the GA is not ready, then the Task Force should wait. Restructuring of 
ICANN and giving a mandate for a new rewrite of the ICANN bylaws is too 
important.

- --Joop

- --
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, 19 Oct 2001 12:13:03 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees

On 21:55 18/10/01 +0200, Marc Schneiders said:

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

I have reservations about the procedure.

- --
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 17:17:28 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees, MOTION

Joop and Jeff,

You two are great contributors and I thank you both, but;

You guys do not get the point that ICANN is consensus driven not democratic.
This is very standard for the beginning of any authority.  The USA was not
founded democratically but by consensus, then it later grew to be democratic
(actually Republican, read Plato's Republic) and then it took over 100 years to
give most adults the right to vote.  Right now we are in a developing consensus
stage.  I certainly hope that within a few years we are totally globally
democratic, and that is why we must continue to stress your point of view, but
not block progress by it.

I also note that there is some confusion as to voting in some of the other posts
on this thread.  The request goes to the NC and there they do vote.  Although
technically I think the vote is really just a tool to determine consensus and
note it must be public.

Roberts rules of order work for group voting, best practices work for consensus.
It is good to note that both can be determined by apathy.

Joops concern over possible good and bad appointees can be handled by committee
and sublists.

If we all get on the same page and realize that in no founding paper is the term
democratically elected from the GA mentioned we can accomplish consensus much
quicker.  Then maybe we can all get together and get that term in place.

May goodness come to each of you all the days of your life.

Eric

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 21:55 18/10/01 +0200, Marc Schneiders said:
> >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.
>
> Contrary to the previous speakers and with my apologies to David, wich whom
> I will have to deal peacefully on the InternetNZ Council,  I must note my
> reservations about the procedure which is used to propel David Farrar to
> the position of "representative of the GA" on this very sensitive task force.
>
> The Chair appoints: does this set a precedent? There are no rules about
> what a Chair of the GA can do and cannot do.
>
> It is one of the problems of cyber democracy that we run the risk of
> nominating and electing people that we barely know.
> (nothing personal Danny)
> How well do you really know the Chair that you have so blithely elected?
> What if some future trusted nominator of a Chair is going to be mistaken in
> his judgement and we get a Chair who is not what he seems?
>
> Then (sorry Roberto) : is this method of open outcry of support appropriate
> and democratic? Does this not disadvantage voters who may feel
> uncomfortable with what is happening on principle, but do not want to be
> seen as spoilers by saying so?
> Is this not why democratic systems have secret ballots?
>
> I would like to see a proper election of one of all the candidates, so that
> *all* GA voters get their say on who is going to represent them on this
> task force.
>
> MOTION to the Chair: please do not be rushed by any imposed deadlines but
> take the time for a proper election.
> If the GA is not ready, then the Task Force should wait. Restructuring of
> ICANN and giving a mandate for a new rewrite of the ICANN bylaws is too
> important.
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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 19:40:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC exclusionary practices and GA funding

Roeland and all assembly members,

  In the interest of arriving at a solution through a motion these
exchanges are indeed important.  Thus far I will be referencing
WXW's, ROeland's, and Joanna's comments/statements and
more importantly ideas or potential motions.
(See more below Roelands comments)

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:39 PM
> |>
> |> 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.
>
> Let me see if I understand you correctly here; You don't think that the
> DNSO/GA wants a stronger presence in the ICANN?

  No offense ROeland, but to be honest here, which is important, I
believe the WXW was addressing the question as to whether there
is a consensus on your possible motion.  As such the question you ask
here would seem to be of a larger nature than what WXW was
addressing in his remarks/comments above...

>
>
> Understand that I presented the demand as an MHSC demand, not a DNSO demand,
> precisely because of uncertainty ,in detail, about DNSO/GA consensus.

  Good point.  As most of us know the devil is in the details.  Also
those details are quite important for clarity if for no other reason.
We have a process that has worked to determine consensus
within this assembly (GA).  We should use that or consider using
Joanna's 'Best Practices' documented process.

  I also share Joanna's response to WXW with respect to getting
some forward movement on this specific issue.
See:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02106.html
She also made another excellent suggestion with respect to
getting this specific issue to the IC as well.
See:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02075.html
and again at: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02081.html

  However it still seems to me that the New.net concern/issue
with the BC and membership is beginning to be overlooked
in the ongoing responses on this thread.  That is why I suggested
that a more direct approach dealing with the precise problem
by the GA, which has a unique position by which it can
responsibly address this issue.
See:http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg02073.html

>
> However, I do believe that, in the large, I have outlined much of the GA's
> desires.

  Yes I would agree with you here!  And well done also!

> Items #2 is MHSC opinion of the degree of repair needed to the DNSO
> structure. Implementation details may vary, along with your mileage. I might
> also state that my confidence level of any part of the demands being met, is
> quite low. I consider the demand to be more declaratory/preparatory in
> nature. If the ICANN BoD meets any part of MHSC's demands then the whole
> DNSO effort moves forward, IMHO. If they don't, then the DNSO dies, also
> IMHO.

  In my opinion as well...

> Failure of the ICANN to at least consider the demands, by itself, will
> be a declaration of intent by the ICANN, towards the DNSO, and we can all
> stop wasting our time, both here and in MdR.

  Food for thought here, that's for sure...

>
>
> What I am absolutely certain of is that, DNSO dysfunctionality requires
> ICANN BoD intervention of precisely the degree which I have outlined in the
> MHSC demand.

  I disagree here.  The last thing the DNSO needs is intervention by the
ICANN BoD and staff.  They have trouble just keeping up their
web page and ML's adequately.

> The problems outlined had been extant from the start and all
> attempts to remedy them internally to the DNSO have, thus far, failed.

  Sadly true...  :(

>
> Further, such efforts will continue to fail. The DNSO track-record is quite
> clear on that point.

  Well lets hope that this can be corrected.

>
>
> |> Perhaps you are suffering from some wishful thinking.  I
> |> have not seen anything resembling a consensus on this issue yet.
>
> In the whole, I think you are wrong.

  Agreed.  But we must be able to show clearly that consensus exists.
We have the tools to do that.  We must use them if validity is to be
properly and honestly established and political jostling is to come
to a definite decision.

> While many may differ in opinions over
> details, there has been near universal agreement that the GA needs a larger
> voice than it currently has and that the DNSO, as constituted, is failing
> its mission objectives (should we ever agree as to what the DNSO mission
> objectives are), has been failing it's mission objectives from the very
> start, and cannot ever meet any sort of mission objectives in the future.

  I would agree largely with this statement.  But when you have arcane and
illegitimate rules and also those that wish to see the DNSO and specifically
the GA fail, such will always be the inevitable result.  Good product
comes directly from good process.  You have little, if any success
if you do it as you go along...

>
> --

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 18:02:55 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees, MOTION

Thursday, Thursday, October 18, 2001, 4:35:57 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> It is one of the problems of cyber democracy that we run the risk of 
> nominating and electing people that we barely know.

There are certain circumstances that lend themselves to being decided
by direct voting, and others that don't.

We don't have to vote on each and every little thing.  The chair is
there for a reason, we don't rule the GA by majority vote, but by
consensus.  The Chair's job is to appoint those whose will represent
the GA's views in those positions.

If he decides that, time permitting, he will open the process up for
nominations and/or a vote, that is great, but to claim that we must
vote on every single appointment and every single decision, turns us
into the worst kind of bureaucracy, the kind where nothing gets done
because the process becomes to onerous.

The IDNO charter is a perfect example of that kind of a process.

- -- 
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 21:08:43 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees, MOTION

Eric and all assembly members,

  You Eric need to understand that this history is exactly why we
need not repeat past mistakes.  It was also over 200 years ago
for the most part as well.  Ergo you have argued yourself in
a circle.  If we don't learn from the mistakes from history
than we are doomed to repeat them.  I for one have learned
from them Eric.  Have you?  It is obvious that Joop has,
amongst many others.

  So please Eric, please don't try to prod us into again making the
mistakes of the past in the present.  It is harmful to all concerned...

  I think that sums this up.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Joop and Jeff,
>
> You two are great contributors and I thank you both, but;
>
> You guys do not get the point that ICANN is consensus driven not democratic.
> This is very standard for the beginning of any authority.  The USA was not
> founded democratically but by consensus, then it later grew to be democratic
> (actually Republican, read Plato's Republic) and then it took over 100 years to
> give most adults the right to vote.  Right now we are in a developing consensus
> stage.  I certainly hope that within a few years we are totally globally
> democratic, and that is why we must continue to stress your point of view, but
> not block progress by it.
>
> I also note that there is some confusion as to voting in some of the other posts
> on this thread.  The request goes to the NC and there they do vote.  Although
> technically I think the vote is really just a tool to determine consensus and
> note it must be public.
>
> Roberts rules of order work for group voting, best practices work for consensus.
> It is good to note that both can be determined by apathy.
>
> Joops concern over possible good and bad appointees can be handled by committee
> and sublists.
>
> If we all get on the same page and realize that in no founding paper is the term
> democratically elected from the GA mentioned we can accomplish consensus much
> quicker.  Then maybe we can all get together and get that term in place.
>
> May goodness come to each of you all the days of your life.
>
> Eric
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > On 21:55 18/10/01 +0200, Marc Schneiders said:
> > >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.
> >
> > Contrary to the previous speakers and with my apologies to David, wich whom
> > I will have to deal peacefully on the InternetNZ Council,  I must note my
> > reservations about the procedure which is used to propel David Farrar to
> > the position of "representative of the GA" on this very sensitive task force.
> >
> > The Chair appoints: does this set a precedent? There are no rules about
> > what a Chair of the GA can do and cannot do.
> >
> > It is one of the problems of cyber democracy that we run the risk of
> > nominating and electing people that we barely know.
> > (nothing personal Danny)
> > How well do you really know the Chair that you have so blithely elected?
> > What if some future trusted nominator of a Chair is going to be mistaken in
> > his judgement and we get a Chair who is not what he seems?
> >
> > Then (sorry Roberto) : is this method of open outcry of support appropriate
> > and democratic? Does this not disadvantage voters who may feel
> > uncomfortable with what is happening on principle, but do not want to be
> > seen as spoilers by saying so?
> > Is this not why democratic systems have secret ballots?
> >
> > I would like to see a proper election of one of all the candidates, so that
> > *all* GA voters get their say on who is going to represent them on this
> > task force.
> >
> > MOTION to the Chair: please do not be rushed by any imposed deadlines but
> > take the time for a proper election.
> > If the GA is not ready, then the Task Force should wait. Restructuring of
> > ICANN and giving a mandate for a new rewrite of the ICANN bylaws is too
> > important.
> >
> > --Joop
> >
> > --
> > 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

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 20:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Task Force appointees

- --- Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, at 15:15 [=GMT-0400], Jonathan
> Weinberg wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > > 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.

Me too.

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.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: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 21:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sanjeev Goyal <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: Morals 

Great services i sent some marks to them.
sanjeev.
=============
- --- Cees Rindmarsch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Reply-to: [email-masked]
> From: "Cees Rindmarsch" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> Subject: Morals (Re: [ga] Fwd: Noble Cause)
> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:34:54 +0200
> 
> Oh, yes, let's hunt down all the small people who want to make some
> money 
> too on INFO. Only the Afilias CARTEL was approved by icann for making
> big $$ 
> and scr*wing up things (from non responding servers to delays, data 
> [nameservers, rather relevant for WORKING domains) not updateble etc
> etc). 
> The whole sunrise was a fake from the start (and also a wrong idea in
> 
> itself, merely implemented to appease lawyers and organizations that
> protect 
> those who need no 'political' protection (read WIPO)).
> It was known all over the internet that the trademarks were not going
> to be 
> checked by Afilias. Only if challenged by THIRD PARTIES (paying a
> fee) they 
> would be, by WIPO.
> Now they seem to have changed their minds and go hunting themselves
> so they 
> can save their face and sell the same name again, big business?
> Good luck to you in assiting them. Maybe they reward you by
> appointing you 
> as Afilias office manager in Goa, Calcutta or Jabulpur.
> 
> My daughter (8 in two weeks, please God) gave up attempts to chaneg
> rules 
> *during* a game about 9 months ago. Afilias is much younger of
> course.
> 
> In law this problem is called 'ex post facto' I think, but IANAL. I
> am sure 
> lawyers will be happy to assist both sides in the disputes to be
> expected.
> 
> This message is delibarately sarcastic.
> 
> [email-masked]
> --- Arbitrator Online <[email-masked]> wrote:
>        > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:52:28 +0530
>        > From: Arbitrator Online <[email-masked]>
>        > Reply-to: Arbitrator Online <[email-masked]>
>        > Organization: Arbitrator Online
>        > To: [email-masked]
>        > Subject: Noble Cause
>        >
>        > Hello Sanjeev,
>        >
>        > We are offering free service to all Sunrise Challengers for
> any
>        > Indian Trademark search. We will pay all expenses regarding
> the
>        > search performed at TM office in India. It will be a free
> service 
> to
>        > all of you. And you will get email response in Two working
> days.
>        >
>        > This is a small gesture we can show to all those who want to
>        > challenge the bogus and fraudulent Registrant in .info.
>        >
>        > And we also expect the similiar response, If anybody can
> provide 
> from
>        > their country to all of us where the online TM checking is
> not
>        > possible.
>        >
>        > You can avail this facility at :
>        >
>        > http://www.arbitratoronline.org
>        >
>        > or email us with your TM to be checked details at:
>        >
>        > [email-masked]
>        >
>        > Waiting for your response.
>        >
>        > Your Friend in India.
>        >
>        > Arbitrator Online.
>        >
>        >
>        >                        mailto:[email-masked]
>        >
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
> 

=====
Visit Us at http://www.mitsuonline.com
http://www.schoolstationery.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #800
************************