Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #804
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, October 20 2001          Volume 01 : Number 804

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

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:54:45 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion, AMENDMENTS

Friday, Friday, October 19, 2001, 5:32:15 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> I would also like to add a clause (Brett's suggestion)

> 7. The General Assembly re-affirms the GA's commitment to the DNSO as 
> originally envisaged as a place for cross-constituency dialogue and 
> consensus building, and requests the Board to fulfil its obligation to 
> facilitate the entry of thus far unrepresented constituencies.

And an Excellent suggestion it was.  I agree it should be added.

- -- 
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: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:15:01 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

Danny and all assembly members,

  For the most part this rewording seems very well done.  I am
sure that it could be moved to a GA vote if you could get the
secretariat to provide a ballot.

  Thank you Danny for providing this!  Well done!

[email-masked] wrote:

> I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an emerging
> GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
>
> Whereas the Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts (adopted
> by the ICANN Board March 4, 1999), state that "The ICANN Board should
> periodically review the status of the constituency groups to determine
> whether all DNSO interests are adequately represented"
>
> Whereas members of the General Assembly have repeatedly expressed their
> concern that the DNSO as currently constituted is not sufficiently
> representative
>
> Whereas problems outlined by the DNSO Review have not been remedied
> internally, and efforts undertaken by the Names Council have failed to
> sufficiently address these concerns
>
> It is therefore
>
> RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:
>
> 1.  Members of the General Assembly believe that DNSO dysfunctionality
> requires direct ICANN Board intervention
>
> 2.  The General Assembly seeks to establish a representative balance by being
> placed on equal footing with the current DNSO Names Council, creating a
> bicameral DNSO.
>
> 3.  The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat support for the
> DNSO/GA to perform its functions.
>
> 4.  The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop an appropriate
> funding model to support its activities.
>
> 5.  The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN Board (to be
> filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)
>
> 6.  The General Assembly seeks to 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.
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:18:51 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion, AMENDMENTS

Honorable Chair,

I submit to you that we may mark a date as in 48 hours from now to declare a
consensus on this matter.  The timing is so that it qualifies for the vote
calendar of the NC.  I to date have counted none opposed except by wording
and procedure which is being corrected.

Of course if there is a ground swell of opposition between now and then we
would not take it up.  However I propose that if WXW agrees, Jeff Williams
agrees, Joanna agrees, Jefsey agrees, Dassa agrees, Roeland and David and
Danny agree, there is only us dotcommoners to object and we agree.  Of
course we await legalists and Kent and Dave and probably Gomes.

I ask specifically for Sotiris, Sandy, Bruce, and Kristee to voice an opine
on the subject..

Thank you all.

May we all think and meditate for good things for our Brother Danny as he
enters a transition from one job unto another and tell the new they are
lucky to have him.

Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Friday, Friday, October 19, 2001, 5:32:15 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > I would also like to add a clause (Brett's suggestion)
>
> > 7. The General Assembly re-affirms the GA's commitment to the DNSO as
> > originally envisaged as a place for cross-constituency dialogue and
> > consensus building, and requests the Board to fulfil its obligation to
> > facilitate the entry of thus far unrepresented constituencies.
>
> And an Excellent suggestion it was.  I agree it should be added.

- --
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 21:32:05 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

Bret and all assembly members,

Bret Fausett wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> > I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an emerging
> > GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
>
> Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time, yesterday. It's
> inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and comment to
> pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view.

  Agreed but Dannys rewording the motion was a very good idea.  I hope
that Roeland is not offended in any way and the he is not characterized
in Dannys rewording inappropriately.  I am sure Roeland will speak up
if he feels that he has been.

  What Danny rewording does and nicely so, is provide a very well
done motion that we all can review, suggest rewording to, and eventually
vote upon when complete.  That is a good and honest method of approach
that benefits all of the assembly members.

> For my part, I think we need
> great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that all persons and
> companies have a place within the constituency structure, ensuring that
> their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am not convinced
> that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the right answer.

  Respectfully I disagree.  Lacking allowance from the ICANN BoD
for new self forming constituencies as the ICANN Bylaws provides
for, and the fact that the GA is a "Catch all" for those that don't
fin into the existing constituencies, or may fit several constituencies,
and therefor best fit into the GA.

>
>
> The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies as necessary to
> represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow the GA to serve
> the function for which it was designed: a place for cross-constituency
> dialogue and consensus building.

  Agreed.  But as you know the ICANN BoD has not allowed for this to happen
in any timely or reasonable manner.

>
>
>       -- Bret
>

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:02:26 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

It is my humble opine that you people either speak up now or we shall face certain
goneness.

I shall continue in my limited roll as consensus builder and outreach expediter.
but without input Mr. Williams and Walsh and Younger and Meyer and Hernand and
Morfin and Dassa will not get their needed motion and umph through.

Please dotcommoners stop watching and start voting.  Right here and Right Now.

May the equinox find you prepared for cold and looking forward to shorter days,

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Bret and all assembly members,
>
> Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > [email-masked] wrote:
> > > I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an emerging
> > > GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
> >
> > Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time, yesterday. It's
> > inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and comment to
> > pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view.
>
>   Agreed but Dannys rewording the motion was a very good idea.  I hope
> that Roeland is not offended in any way and the he is not characterized
> in Dannys rewording inappropriately.  I am sure Roeland will speak up
> if he feels that he has been.
>
>   What Danny rewording does and nicely so, is provide a very well
> done motion that we all can review, suggest rewording to, and eventually
> vote upon when complete.  That is a good and honest method of approach
> that benefits all of the assembly members.
>
> > For my part, I think we need
> > great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that all persons and
> > companies have a place within the constituency structure, ensuring that
> > their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am not convinced
> > that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the right answer.
>
>   Respectfully I disagree.  Lacking allowance from the ICANN BoD
> for new self forming constituencies as the ICANN Bylaws provides
> for, and the fact that the GA is a "Catch all" for those that don't
> fin into the existing constituencies, or may fit several constituencies,
> and therefor best fit into the GA.
>
> >
> >
> > The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies as necessary to
> > represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow the GA to serve
> > the function for which it was designed: a place for cross-constituency
> > dialogue and consensus building.
>
>   Agreed.  But as you know the ICANN BoD has not allowed for this to happen
> in any timely or reasonable manner.
>
> >
> >
> >       -- Bret
> >
>
> 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

- --
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, 20 Oct 2001 00:22:03 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

I fully support the reworded version of Roeland's motion.

Put my name on the list of seconders.

>
>
>[email-masked] wrote:
>
>>I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an emerging
>>GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
>>
>>Whereas the Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts (adopted
>>by the ICANN Board March 4, 1999), state that "The ICANN Board should
>>periodically review the status of the constituency groups to determine
>>whether all DNSO interests are adequately represented"
>>
>>Whereas members of the General Assembly have repeatedly expressed their
>>concern that the DNSO as currently constituted is not sufficiently
>>representative
>>
>>Whereas problems outlined by the DNSO Review have not been remedied
>>internally, and efforts undertaken by the Names Council have failed to
>>sufficiently address these concerns
>>
>>It is therefore
>>
>>RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:
>>
>>1.  Members of the General Assembly believe that DNSO dysfunctionality
>>requires direct ICANN Board intervention
>>
>>2.  The General Assembly seeks to establish a representative balance by being
>>placed on equal footing with the current DNSO Names Council, creating a
>>bicameral DNSO.
>>
>>3.  The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat support for the
>>DNSO/GA to perform its functions.
>>
>>4.  The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop an appropriate
>>funding model to support its activities.
>>
>>5.  The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN Board (to be
>>filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)
>>
>>6.  The General Assembly seeks to 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.
>>
>>--
>>

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- ----------------------------
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, 
or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is 
actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives 
valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, 
the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the 
end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while 
daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know 
neither victory or defeat."

- -THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne,1910) 

- --
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 22:11:08 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

Saturday, Saturday, October 20, 2001, 12:22:03 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> I fully support the reworded version of Roeland's motion.

> Put my name on the list of seconders.

I'd be interested in hearing from those who do not support it, or who
have problem with a portion of it, so that we can make any necessary
changes to make sure it represents the broadest possible consensus in
of the members of the GA.

- -- 
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: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:45:03 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion - Attn. DNSO Secretariat, ballot needed on this motion...

Eric and all assembly members,

  Remember Eric, first we must have a ballot from the secretariat.
Allow for Danny to do his work on this.  Than we can vote in the
proper manner.  Anything else leads to chaos.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> It is my humble opine that you people either speak up now or we shall face certain
> goneness.
>
> I shall continue in my limited roll as consensus builder and outreach expediter.
> but without input Mr. Williams and Walsh and Younger and Meyer and Hernand and
> Morfin and Dassa will not get their needed motion and umph through.
>
> Please dotcommoners stop watching and start voting.  Right here and Right Now.
>
> May the equinox find you prepared for cold and looking forward to shorter days,
>
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Bret and all assembly members,
> >
> > Bret Fausett wrote:
> >
> > > [email-masked] wrote:
> > > > I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an emerging
> > > > GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
> > >
> > > Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time, yesterday. It's
> > > inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and comment to
> > > pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view.
> >
> >   Agreed but Dannys rewording the motion was a very good idea.  I hope
> > that Roeland is not offended in any way and the he is not characterized
> > in Dannys rewording inappropriately.  I am sure Roeland will speak up
> > if he feels that he has been.
> >
> >   What Danny rewording does and nicely so, is provide a very well
> > done motion that we all can review, suggest rewording to, and eventually
> > vote upon when complete.  That is a good and honest method of approach
> > that benefits all of the assembly members.
> >
> > > For my part, I think we need
> > > great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that all persons and
> > > companies have a place within the constituency structure, ensuring that
> > > their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am not convinced
> > > that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the right answer.
> >
> >   Respectfully I disagree.  Lacking allowance from the ICANN BoD
> > for new self forming constituencies as the ICANN Bylaws provides
> > for, and the fact that the GA is a "Catch all" for those that don't
> > fin into the existing constituencies, or may fit several constituencies,
> > and therefor best fit into the GA.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies as necessary to
> > > represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow the GA to serve
> > > the function for which it was designed: a place for cross-constituency
> > > dialogue and consensus building.
> >
> >   Agreed.  But as you know the ICANN BoD has not allowed for this to happen
> > in any timely or reasonable manner.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >       -- Bret
> > >
> >
> > 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

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, 20 Oct 2001 00:58:18 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

WXW and all assembly members,

William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, October 20, 2001, 12:22:03 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> > I fully support the reworded version of Roeland's motion.
>
> > Put my name on the list of seconders.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing from those who do not support it, or who
> have problem with a portion of it, so that we can make any necessary
> changes to make sure it represents the broadest possible consensus in
> of the members of the GA.

  By this are you suggesting that there are some changes needed?  If so,
please share your version of what those changes you believe should be
made.

>
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:20:59 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

Hi!
I think you are right Roeland, too much start being too much. I am going to 
incorporate the IBA Internet Business Association. Will do it as a French 
association as it quick and cheap.

The articles will be fairly standard and provide the shell, the bank 
account and paypal.
The charter will be in English and French.

I do not want to disclose it too soon and gather trusted people first and 
be in a position to claim an earlier date. I intend to propose Membership 
to a very selected panel of business manager/owners. Then to approach 
consumer organizations and Chambers of Commerce to get some recognition.

The target is to focus on people making their business mainly with the 
Internet and to see which strategy we can develop together to organize a 
business environment rather that a dogmatic and talkative fight for no-power.

Please let me know if you are interested in being founding Members and to 
suggest other FM. We could have Founders until the end of he year. Founding 
Members would be life free.

The board would be of 21. I would take a permanent seat to make sure there 
is a continuity and because I will assume secretariat. Initial members of 
he BoD will be coopt.  Let me know if you are interested. I will see if I 
can find a very simple way to set-up a charter including national chapters.

Once numerous enough it can enter into an MoU with the ICANN to interface 
it as an SME oriented constituency.

I will try to think about a business plan. We could organize seminar on the 
Internet to fellows business owners and the money would in part go to the 
IBA. I suppose that in Europe we can start something along those lines 
quick enough.

Jefsey.

At 22:17 19/10/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>Hello Bret,
>
>How many times or how long, do we have to continue trying something that is
>patently not working. At some time, one has to admit to reality.After two
>years of trying to fix this, we have still have the status quo. The
>confidence behind an internal repair has long sice eroded and partial
>repairs are often worse than no repairs.
>
>It is time to either fix it or junk it. I kindly refer you to the WG-Review
>archives. The general feeling there was that no one knows how to define a
>constituency. To a large extant, the requirements for a constituency are
>market-driven and the ICANN doesn't even know how to do that, let alone have
>the mechanisms in place. Yes at that time, MHSC used that factiod to make
>the argument for abolishing constituencies altogether. MHSC still feels that
>way, but bows to the political reality that the extant constituencies will
>successfully resist organizational death. That same factoid has been also
>used to argue against creating more constituencies. Thus, freezing the
>current situation in amber ... forever, unless we do something different.
>Bicamerality routes around the impasse and eliminates the Single Point Of
>Failure (SPOF), that is the Names Council. The Names Council can continue to
>exclusively serve its constituent vested interests, as they do now, and the
>GA can continue to represent all domain name registrants, from all root
>zones, inclusively. I can't see any reason for one group to have any more
>"say" than the other.
>
>In US Federal terms, the analogy is that the NC is like the Senate and the
>GA is like the House of Representitives. All have a vested interest in DNS
>policies, simply by being registrants. Non-registrants are already supposed
>to be a part of the AtLarge (ALSO), at ICANN BoD level. Both Hamilton and
>Jefferson may prevail equally.
>
>|> -----Original Message-----
>|> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
>|> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 12:12 PM
>|> To: [ga]
>|> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion
>|>
>|>
>|> [email-masked] wrote:
>|> > I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what
>|> may be an emerging
>|> > GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
>|>
>|> Danny, Roeland's motion circulated, for the first time,
>|> yesterday. It's
>|> inconceivable to me that there has been sufficient time and
>|> comment to
>|> pronounce it an emerging GA consensus view. For my part, I
>|> think we need
>|> great reform in the current DNSO structure to ensure that
>|> all persons and
>|> companies have a place within the constituency structure,
>|> ensuring that
>|> their voices are heard and their interests served, but I am
>|> not convinced
>|> that making the General Assembly an equal chamber is the
>|> right answer.
>|>
>|> The better solution, in my opinion, is to add constituencies
>|> as necessary to
>|> represent the entire range of interests in the DNS and allow
>|> the GA to serve
>|> the function for which it was designed: a place for
>|> cross-constituency
>|> dialogue and consensus building.
>|>
>|>       -- Bret
>|>
>|> --
>|> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>|> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>|>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 02:24:16 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I'd be interested in hearing from those who do not support it, or who
> have problem with a portion of it, so that we can make any necessary
> changes to make sure it represents the broadest possible consensus in
> of the members of the GA.

Not me - I'm a supporter.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 20 Oct 2001 09:54:14 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

Hey Patrick,

Of course, I support this but I really want to hear some opposition.  I
just want to see someone put up an argument against something Joanna,
William, Jeff and Jefsey, Dassa and Roeland and Sotiris and Danny support.
Also of course, I will stay out of the fray as I am relegated to consensus
building - boring.

It is good to hear from you.  I include you in my prayers. But I also curse
you every time I get a private email that requires of me to help build
consensus and assist the general workings of the GA.  I sure am glad you
beat me out for the position. I think it was William who wrote to the
effect that the best qualification for the Chair job is not wanting it.

Most importantly take care of yourself and your family, the world is better
with you in it.  And on behalf of us dotcommoners we thank you for all of
your contributions to this process.  It is men like you that stand for the
"good" in - good versus evil.

Eric

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> William X Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > I'd be interested in hearing from those who do not support it, or who
> > have problem with a portion of it, so that we can make any necessary
> > changes to make sure it represents the broadest possible consensus in
> > of the members of the GA.
>
> Not me - I'm a supporter.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:55:20 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Afternic Auctioning register.com expireds

On 22:53 19/10/01, Andy Gardner said:
>I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression, that ICANN's mandate was to
>introduce competition at the registrar level, to ensure customers are
>supplied domain names at appropriate fee levels.

The registrar level has been created by the ICANN. How could have they had 
to reoganize an activity they had not orgnaized yet. My understanding is 
that they had to reorganize the registry level through TLD competition and 
made people believe that 100 registrars selling the same registry was 
competition. It was only the investors in registrars who subsidized NSI 
warranting the NSI registry a $ 6 revenue oer DN over millions of new 
domain names (otherwise NSI would have had to pay for the customer support 
footed by registrars now for even less than one single dollar per annum). 
This seems to have permitted NSI to better organize their strategy and to 
restore the previous situation in a) having the right to keep being a 
registrar (Plan B) and b) in buying back registrars once they have no more 
money to continue paying for the NSI sales. NSI share value does not show 
that the company has been really contained by the ICANN. 

- --
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, 20 Oct 2001 10:52:24 -0700
From: [email-masked] (PMIW,  Ken Stoen)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

I  also fully support the reworded version of Roeland's motion.
Put my name on the list of seconders.

Ken Stoen

[email-masked]
[email-masked]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 10:36 AM
Subject: [ga] Re: Roeland's Motion

> I have re-worded Roeland's motion to better reflect what may be an
emerging
> GA consensus view.  Your comments are needed.
>
>
> Whereas the Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts
(adopted
> by the ICANN Board March 4, 1999), state that "The ICANN Board should
> periodically review the status of the constituency groups to determine
> whether all DNSO interests are adequately represented"
>
> Whereas members of the General Assembly have repeatedly expressed their
> concern that the DNSO as currently constituted is not sufficiently
> representative
>
> Whereas problems outlined by the DNSO Review have not been remedied
> internally, and efforts undertaken by the Names Council have failed to
> sufficiently address these concerns
>
> It is therefore
>
> RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:
>
> 1.  Members of the General Assembly believe that DNSO dysfunctionality
> requires direct ICANN Board intervention
>
> 2.  The General Assembly seeks to establish a representative balance by
being
> placed on equal footing with the current DNSO Names Council, creating a
> bicameral DNSO.
>
> 3.  The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat support for
the
> DNSO/GA to perform its functions.
>
> 4.  The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop an appropriate
> funding model to support its activities.
>
> 5.  The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN Board (to be
> filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)
>
> 6.  The General Assembly seeks to 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.
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:21:48 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

At 10:52 AM -0700 20/10/01, PMIW,  Ken Stoen wrote:
>I  also fully support the reworded version of Roeland's motion.
>Put my name on the list of seconders.

Likewise.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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, 20 Oct 2001 12:10:21 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Outreach/Multilingualism and Finance (wg-review results)

Dear Members,

I apologize for the tardiness of this report.

A little under a year ago in the WG-Review Mr. Greg Burton assigned me
the task of Outreach/Multilingualism.  He advised not to let it die with
the WG.  Our small company has contributed in time and asset resource
usage over $100k to the project.  The idea was to seek and find and then
develop a global network for inclusion of the dotcommoner into the
politics of the Internet.  (make no mistake that is what ICANN results
in)

Outreach is not a problem but we are at a point where we may need
financing.

Please review this site, not for country specifics but for the system
and methodology.
http://www.tokten-vn.org.vn/
In some hybrid sense this will be incorporated and probably partnered
with the UN.

Please put Internet Cafe into your favorite search engine.  We believe
now that there may well be over a million known and 1.5 including those
not licensed or registered. In all of the hundreds I have visited they
have multilinguals who are more than happy to translate.  {Vint's
comments on accuracy justifying exclusion are bull}
We are convinced that while we reach globalization, the community
surrounding and supporting these places (sometimes called pc rooms or
bangs or even bars) will reflect community views in voting. We will need
great input on the communiqués going to such places so as to accurately
reflect our consensus - or not.

Now please visit our Danny's web site at
http://www.icannworld.org/icannworld.htm
Here the participating cafes will contribute to translation and
community input.  Referring back to the Tokten model we hope to create
cooperation by bringing people back to their roots and propagating
cultural adoption.
We already have it working in the shoeshine boy model.

I think all of you intelligent folks can understand that within just a
short period of time we of the GA will be able to reach millions with a
fair amount of accuracy.  Those we reach will be from all over the globe
and generally dotcommoners.  This will give backbone to Roeland's
motion.  This can force implementation of a true AL.  This can be the
bedrock for a true democracy on the net.

FINANCE

Any one can see that this valuable resource should be able to finance
itself through a corporate sponsorship in exchange for an honorable
mention within our correspondence with the people we target. (wouldn't
afilias be funny but they have the funding and by contract need to spend
it)
Jeff Williams I ask for you to take up this mantle as I am overloaded
and cannot work the structure operations and still have time for
finance.

MULTILINGUALISM

I want to thank Elisabeth for helping (albeit unknowingly) to this
cause.  Her presentation at Melbourne of the various linguas and my
subsequent visit to a cafe (beer hall in Melbourne) and discussions with
fellow travelers from all over the globe while surfing the net gave rise
to the projects impetuous.

DEBATE

This project is not owned by the GA or ICANN.  We can easily implement
it with another group.  But our company would like to give it to the
GA.  Do not worry we recognize there are one hundred reasons to endorse
it or use it or reject it.  One reason that comes immediately to mind
for rejection is David and Roeland and how they have been treated when
trying to participate.  Another is the constant abuse I receive here ;>}

The implications of security and our global war on terrorism are not
ignored.  If developed properly this network can be of great benefit.
Marketing is Education and Education is Marketing - Let us market
greater cultural and inclusive understanding.

The project can also self fund through a $1 US donation per cafe.
Hi-Tek Multimedia is a family company of refugee immigrants, even me as
a second gen Basque/Irish separatist, and we can and will commercialize
this project but we would rather give it to our great InterNation and
it's netizens.

Happiness, Independence, Freedom and Pride to all.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #804
************************