Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #806
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, October 22 2001           Volume 01 : Number 806

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

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 02:44:37 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Roeland's Motion

I, too support this motion.  Please add my name the list.

Leah

On 20 Oct 2001, at 10:52, PMIW,  Ken Stoen wrote:

> 
> ----- 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: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:30:01 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Structure Taskforce

Danny asked me to both represent the GA on the NC Structure Taskforce
and also to chair a committee of GA participants who are interested in
the process, suggesting we use one of the specialised GA mailing
lists.

ga-icann seems to be the most appropriate list to use so I will use
that list to keep people informed of issues before the Taskforce etc
and also to try and generate some pro-active views.

To ensure the widest available participation though I will also keep
the GA itself updated on all issues and will read any comments made
here.  So people can decide for themselves if they wish to participate
through the specialist ga-icann group or just through the normal ga
mailing list.

Before getting into some of the more detailed issues I'd be
interesting in views from people on basically whether the DNSO should
be left as it is, modified or abolished.

Most people (not all and I would like to hear from those who advocate
for the status quo) seem to accept the DNSO is not performing
particularly well.  It got effectively ignored by the Board on the
Verisign contracts issue and also appears to have been bypassed on the
issue of country name registrations in .info.

The concept of having all domain name issues resolved within the DNSO
and only get ratified by the Board is a noble one in principle.  The
reality appears to be that the DNSO has not given the Board much
guidance on domain name issues and when it has it has been ignored or
bypassed.  Can one change the DNSO so that this is not the case?  WIll
a more representative structure and more funding make enough of a
difference?

The alternate path to reforming the DNSO is what the ALSC has been
looking at and effectively abolishing it.  The intent there seems to
be dividing ICANN into a number of SOs such as providers and users
where some existing DNSO constituencies would make up the providers SO
and others the users SO.  If one goes down this path them domain name
policy would not be the exclusive province of one SO.

The number of permutations as regards to details is near infinite so
at this stage what I would find useful is some feedback on which
approach people prefer:

a) Reforming the DNSO but keeping it as the sole SO dealing with
domain name policy
b) Abolishing the DNSO and focusing on what SOs should replace it and
how they inter-act with each other

So everything is out in the open I have to say my initial inclination
is for (b) but this is not a strongly held conviction.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 12:14:51 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Ballot question

In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly, a motion 
has been put forth, has been seconded, and after discussion has received the 
benefit of a friendly amendment.  The Chair has determined that sufficient 
consensus exists to move the matter forward to a ballot.  The Secretariat is 
instructed to commence a vote of the General Assembly on the following ballot 
question:

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 and 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 representative 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.

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.

[     ]  Agree
[     ]  Disagree
- --
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 12:30:14 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ballot question

Danny,

You left out the option to "Abstain" in the vote

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 12:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Ballot question

In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly, a
motion 
has been put forth, has been seconded, and after discussion has received
the 
benefit of a friendly amendment.  The Chair has determined that
sufficient 
consensus exists to move the matter forward to a ballot.  The
Secretariat is 
instructed to commence a vote of the General Assembly on the following
ballot 
question:

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"

(snip snip)

[     ]  Agree
[     ]  Disagree
- --
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 12:49:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce

Dave and all assembly member,

  Thank you for this informative update.  Un fortunately as you are not
the elected representative for the task force, it is inappropriate to
consider anyone in that position currently.

  We must have an election to determine whom would be the best
GA member to represent the GA members.

DPF wrote:

> Danny asked me to both represent the GA on the NC Structure Taskforce
> and also to chair a committee of GA participants who are interested in
> the process, suggesting we use one of the specialised GA mailing
> lists.
>
> ga-icann seems to be the most appropriate list to use so I will use
> that list to keep people informed of issues before the Taskforce etc
> and also to try and generate some pro-active views.
>
> To ensure the widest available participation though I will also keep
> the GA itself updated on all issues and will read any comments made
> here.  So people can decide for themselves if they wish to participate
> through the specialist ga-icann group or just through the normal ga
> mailing list.
>
> Before getting into some of the more detailed issues I'd be
> interesting in views from people on basically whether the DNSO should
> be left as it is, modified or abolished.
>
> Most people (not all and I would like to hear from those who advocate
> for the status quo) seem to accept the DNSO is not performing
> particularly well.  It got effectively ignored by the Board on the
> Verisign contracts issue and also appears to have been bypassed on the
> issue of country name registrations in .info.
>
> The concept of having all domain name issues resolved within the DNSO
> and only get ratified by the Board is a noble one in principle.  The
> reality appears to be that the DNSO has not given the Board much
> guidance on domain name issues and when it has it has been ignored or
> bypassed.  Can one change the DNSO so that this is not the case?  WIll
> a more representative structure and more funding make enough of a
> difference?
>
> The alternate path to reforming the DNSO is what the ALSC has been
> looking at and effectively abolishing it.  The intent there seems to
> be dividing ICANN into a number of SOs such as providers and users
> where some existing DNSO constituencies would make up the providers SO
> and others the users SO.  If one goes down this path them domain name
> policy would not be the exclusive province of one SO.
>
> The number of permutations as regards to details is near infinite so
> at this stage what I would find useful is some feedback on which
> approach people prefer:
>
> a) Reforming the DNSO but keeping it as the sole SO dealing with
> domain name policy
> b) Abolishing the DNSO and focusing on what SOs should replace it and
> how they inter-act with each other
>
> So everything is out in the open I have to say my initial inclination
> is for (b) but this is not a strongly held conviction.
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:02:17 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

I choose not to abstain.  I choose instead to ask all to move forward
although I find this extra vote extraneous because we have consensus
like we have never seen before in the GA.

[  X ]  Agree
[     ]  Disagree
- --

[email-masked] wrote:

> In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly, a motion
> has been put forth, has been seconded, and after discussion has received the
> benefit of a friendly amendment.  The Chair has determined that sufficient
> consensus exists to move the matter forward to a ballot.  The Secretariat is
> instructed to commence a vote of the General Assembly on the following ballot
> question:
>
> 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 and 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 representative 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.
>
> 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.
>
> [ X ]  Agree
> [     ]  Disagree
> --

Eric

>
> 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: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:14:13 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce

Let us move to the sub list where we can get some work done without
obstructionists.

Jeff
Please give us less informed than you, one single written rule that supports
this position.  Do not bother with prior actions as this is a rule based and
not precedent based concept as we are not in court.

Jeff Williams wrote:

>   We must have an election to determine whom would be the best
> GA member to represent the GA members.

This is just plain and simple wrong.  Only Jeff supports this position and
if I am wrong it will be a small minority, maybe 3.  I do hope that someday
we will have the funds and luxury to have elections for every assignment but
that is a nice ideal not a requirement that can be used to block progress.

Anyone who feels that other input should be exhibited here should join with
David on the sublist and give reasonable input.  I think David should and
will take a hard look at Roelands motion and follow from there.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:26:02 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ballot question

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 12:15 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Ballot question

In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly, a
motion 
has been put forth, has been seconded, and after discussion has received the

benefit of a friendly amendment.  The Chair has determined that sufficient 
consensus exists to move the matter forward to a ballot.  The Secretariat is

instructed to commence a vote of the General Assembly on the following
ballot 
question:

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 and 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 representative 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.

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.

[     ]  Agree
[   X  ]  Disagree
- --
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 20:43:13 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

Eric and all assembly members,

  I believe that it is proper and reasonable to wait for a ballot as
Danny, our elected chair has requested and others, including
myself have suggested.  Ergo, your attempt here Eric, although
well meaning and possible laudable is a bit premature and in
direct conflict with the current procedure.  Therefore I
do abstain from THIS Poll to which you suggest here...

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I choose not to abstain.  I choose instead to ask all to move forward
> although I find this extra vote extraneous because we have consensus
> like we have never seen before in the GA.
>
> [  X ]  Agree
> [     ]  Disagree
> --
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly, a motion
> > has been put forth, has been seconded, and after discussion has received the
> > benefit of a friendly amendment.  The Chair has determined that sufficient
> > consensus exists to move the matter forward to a ballot.  The Secretariat is
> > instructed to commence a vote of the General Assembly on the following ballot
> > question:
> >
> > 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 and 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 representative 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > [ X ]  Agree
> > [     ]  Disagree
> > --
>
> Eric
>
> >
> > 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

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: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:52:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce

Eric and all assembly members,

  As this subject had it's beginnings on the GA list forum, and the fact that
the Sub-lists have been for the most part ignored or are not currently
in regular use as well as having a divisive nature amongst many of
our GA members, respectfully I must decline your invitation as stated.

  It is also not consistent with the second part of your request also
given that the precedent for THIS ASSEMBLY has been set, long
argued for, and now showing that it does, can and will be fruitful,
that as such, your second request although well meaning, is
inconsistent with current practice, out of the norm for and assembly,
cannot and does not show a reflection of the GA, and therefore
is not representative of the GA.

  I and I am sure others, appreciate your concern and interest in this
matter, and hopefully will take under your own persona council
and/or advisement to adhere to the present practice and await for
a nomination period and/or a ballot to decide the matter in a
representative manner that befits this General Assembly and
its fine members.  Thank you.

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Let us move to the sub list where we can get some work done without
> obstructionists.
>
> Jeff
> Please give us less informed than you, one single written rule that supports
> this position.  Do not bother with prior actions as this is a rule based and
> not precedent based concept as we are not in court.
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   We must have an election to determine whom would be the best
> > GA member to represent the GA members.
>
> This is just plain and simple wrong.  Only Jeff supports this position and
> if I am wrong it will be a small minority, maybe 3.  I do hope that someday
> we will have the funds and luxury to have elections for every assignment but
> that is a nice ideal not a requirement that can be used to block progress.
>
> Anyone who feels that other input should be exhibited here should join with
> David on the sublist and give reasonable input.  I think David should and
> will take a hard look at Roelands motion and follow from there.
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric

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: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:17:28 -0700
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

[email-masked] wrote:

>In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly, a motion 
>has been put forth, has been seconded, and after discussion has received the 
>benefit of a friendly amendment.  The Chair has determined that sufficient 
>consensus exists to move the matter forward to a ballot.  The Secretariat is 
>instructed to commence a vote of the General Assembly on the following ballot 
>question:
>
>
>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 and 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 representative 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.
>
>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.
>
>[   X  ]  Agree
>[     ]  Disagree
>
Abstain?  Wouldn't think of it.

Forget burdening the Secretariat.  On the list, publicly, just as 
myself, Marilyn Cade, and Eric Dierker.  Cards on the table folks.  

>
>--
>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
>
>

- -- 
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: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:57:43 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce

At 21:30 21/10/01 +1300, DPF wrote:

>a) Reforming the DNSO but keeping it as the sole SO dealing with
>domain name policy
>b) Abolishing the DNSO and focusing on what SOs should replace it and
>how they inter-act with each other
>
>So everything is out in the open I have to say my initial inclination
>is for (b) but this is not a strongly held conviction.

Good. My initial inclination is for (a).
 From the beginning the DNSO was seen as a promise for a forum of input for 
all DNS stakeholders. The Bylaws have specific provisions for the flexible 
entry of new constituencies.

That is why such fierce battles have been waged for the shape of the DNSO 
(Paris Draft, anyone?)

Abolishing the DNSO before any clear alternative has any kind of consensus 
would be, well, not just replacing the goal-posts once again, but placing 
them in cloud cuckoo land.
The ICANN staff may be happy with the abolition of the DNSO just before it 
finally reforms itself  into a meaningful Support Organization that the 
Board will actually listen to, but for others it will reek of a 
just-in-time Bylaw rewriting to thwart stakeholder democracy once again.

If I were you, as an appointee of the Chair and not an elected 
representative, I would go very slow on pushing any particular p.o.v., 
except one of an emerging consensus.

- --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: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:06:48 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

At 22:17 21/10/01 -0700, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>Forget burdening the Secretariat.  On the list, publicly, just as myself, 
>Marilyn Cade, and Eric Dierker.  Cards on the table folks.

I respect  those who vote here in plain view of all, but the official vote 
should be the secret ballot counted by the secretariat.
Same argument as I used to question Roberto's call of public support for 
the Chair's appointee:
Not doing so skews the results.

P.S. My own vote will be in favour of the reworded motion. (thanks Danny)

- --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: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:00:12 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ballot question

It's a little irregular but, here's my half-nickle.

Someone please refresh me on what happened to the regular voting mechanism?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 9:15 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Ballot question
|> 
|> 
|> In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General 
|> Assembly, a motion 
|> has been put forth, has been seconded, and after discussion 
|> has received the 
|> benefit of a friendly amendment.  The Chair has determined 
|> that sufficient 
|> consensus exists to move the matter forward to a ballot.  
|> The Secretariat is 
|> instructed to commence a vote of the General Assembly on the 
|> following ballot 
|> question:
|> 
|> 
|> 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 
|> and 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 representative 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.
|> 
|> 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.
|> 
|> [ X  ]  Agree
|> [    ]  Disagree
|> --
|> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #806
************************