Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #810
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 23 2001          Volume 01 : Number 810

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 01:00:42 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear Roeland,
>
> > |> I understand that GA members feel that the GA's
> > |> opinion does not count much in the ICANN Universe
> > |> and, maybe also considering the debate about the
> > |> At Large, this should change soon.
> > How? ... getting rid of the DNSO altogether or marginalizing it further?
>
> I'm not emotionally attached to the DNSO as such. We
> probably agree that ICANN decisions on domain names
> currently are not "Internet community consensus" but
> rather "some major stakeholders consensus".

  Even this is a bit reaching a conclusion at best, Alex.

> It's
> probably impossible to find the /ideal/ solution, but
> we should definitely strive to improve or replace it.
>
> > I posted the real cure last January, in WG-Review. I recognise that it
> > wasn't politically realistic, even when I posted it. This proposal is the
> > next-best thing. After two solid years, there continue to exist large blocks
> > of the disenfranchised (those without any road to a vote). You may be
> > content with that.
> No, I am not, see above. Unfortunately, I'm not
> convinced that this proposal is politically
> realistic either.

  I would disagree.  It is politically realistic.  I may not be ICANN BoD
and Staff's politically acceptable.

>
>
> > But, most of the rest of us aren't. The DNSO has been
> > broken, in this manner, from its very conception in Monterrey. Are you
> > denying that?
>
> The DNSO is broken in several ways; also from the
> Board perspective, I'm sure. However, existing
> constituencies are reluctant to give up what they
> have gained until now, so improvements will
> necessarily be piecemail: Addition of new
> constituencies, some general rules preventing
> the barring of applicants from joining a
> constituency if it meets its criteria, limits
> to membership in multiple constituencies etc.
> The radical alternative is giving up the DNSO
> and looking for different cleavages.

  Cleavages?  Really now!?  I don't look for
"Cleavages" in the same places you do!  >;)
But seriously though, replacing the DNSO
with what it seems the ICANN BoD is trying to justify,
with the ALSO in the manner they have thus far
proposed is unexceptable as well.

>
>
> > Equal footing is equal footing, in this case, on par with the existing NC.
> > The GA wants to be something other than a kaffeklatsch.
>
> Too broad! For instance, bicameral could mean that the
> GA can, with a certain majority, declare a community
> NC-declared consensus void. On the assumption that
> GA majority opinion and NC majority opinion conflict
> about a certain issue, what is the mechanism to resolve
> such a conflict?

  A vote by a real At-Large of course is the resolution
for such possibilities.

>
>
> Frankly, the GA often enough fails to show that it
> is anything else than kaffeeklatsch, and proposals
> to change that (such as the Best Practices) have
> been drowned in discussions. Instead of proposing a
> structure which enables the GA to give high quality
> input, the motion simply asks for more power and money.

  You didn't read it very carefully if you can make this statement
in your last sentence.

>
> If ICANN Board members are unhappy about the input
> quality they get from the DNSO NC, having an
> unstructured GA on par simply doesn't look like the
> solution.

  Maybe.  However the GA represents more diverse interests.
As such a more reasonable solution is likely to emerge.  The problem
with the GA is lack of a good process that is in place, but not followed
or is circumvented for various reasons, and a set of rules for
participation that are Selective Censorship, and illegitimate.

>
>
> > |> What shall the budget be used for? The motion seems
> > |> to call for a GA budget for a budget's sake.
> > If you had truely read the message board, other than occasional browsing,
> > you would have noted much of the discussion having occured within the prior
> > 30-days. The ideas presented and their implications, have been discussed for
> > years.
> Ouch. :)
>
> > |> The NC has a procedure for "determining consensus",
> > |> and it is obviously debatable. What is the GA
> > |> procedure for "voting the recorded consensus"?
> > |> (Whether an imperative mandate conflicts with
> > |> director's duties to the corporation is a different
> > |> question.)
> >
> > Many of us have no representation on the NC, period, and never have.
> (Since there is no constituency for individual domain
> name holders, I'm not represented on the NC either.)
>
> > Both the NewNet memo and the MHSC demand email make that clear. Do you have
> > some disagreement wih those facts? Or is it that those points are not important
> > to you?
> Or -- option c -- is it that the /solution/ presented
> here is not practical?

  No.

> These points are important
> to me, but I don't see how these broad ad hoc
> proposals are an improvement over the proposals
> previously discussed.

  They may not be with respect to some Motions that have been
presented in the past.  SOme of which have seconds, and are still
awaiting the Chair to request a ballot on.  None the less, this
Motion has broad support thus far.  Or at least enough support for
the Chair to request a ballot on.

>
> About New.net: It looks like the Business constituency
> tries a club model approach which conflicts with the
> ICANN promise of inclusiveness.

  ICANN IS thus far a CLUB.  Not and organization yet.  It does not
have legitimacy.  ICANN's BoD and in particular it's staff, have
seemingly acted independently and frequently declared "Consensus"
without being able to provide any evidence that "Consensus" exists.
As such, for instance with the UDRP, The ICANN BoD and staff
have not served the Stakeholders, gone against the suggestions
of the NC, the GA, and at least two of the Constituencies on
three occasions at least.  It therefore cannot be in compliance
with the White Paper or the MoU.

> The same applies when
> it comes to the representation of individual domain
> name holders. But this is no answer to the question
> how the GA shall come to consensus decisions about
> DNS recommendations to the ICANN Board in the future
> without having adequate procedures.
>
> > |> Wait a minute -- what are those people doing?
> > |> How are they elected? Are they paid? What "DNSO/GA staff"?
> > |> Doing what, hired by whom and responsible to whom?
> > |> Is there no need to think this through before
> > |> voting?
> > Responsibility and hireing authority is established within this motion. They
> > are plainly stated.
> So the 'Advocate' and the 'Consensus Leader' are elected
> volunteers which are hiring staff from the GA budget?
> What is the role of the GA Chair and such an Advocate then?
>
> > Also, the nature of the GA is heavily dependent on dynamic consensus
> > polling. Further, the GA needs to keep a public record of consensus results,
> > with statistical analysis capability. Right now, it's a mostly manual system
> > and is not scaleable. Those capabilities have been talked to death. Other
> > then a limited balloting system, we don't have anything like what the GA
> > really needs to function. We have already lost one elected official due to
> > workload. Such automated systems need to be put in place so we don't have to
> > depend on outside donated resources, for critical infrastructure, and that
> > we don't over-work our volunteers. A group of technologists, not having such
> > a system, kind of blows their credibility, don't you think?
>
> I'm sorry: This looks like a technologists' solution to a
> non-technical problem -- interaction of a highly heterogenous
> group. The GA's failure to deliver has little to do with workload,
> and I don't think this is the reason that we have lost one
> elected official.

  He should have never been elected or more properly run for election.
He should have know that, and I believe did.

> It's simply very difficult to get results if
> there is not even an agreed path -- it either takes superb
> leadership or, on the long run, good rules.
>
> > Given the context, it's not vague or incomplete at all. All the evidence is
> > presented within the motion and within the context of the GA and the general
> > DNSO. The itemized articles are not really separable.
> >
> > Given that this isn't a new idea and that we've all been discussing elements
> > of this for the past year, we really don't need yet more delay, don't you
> > think?
>
> It's not a question of time delay. If the majority of
> the GA wants to pass such a motion quickly, it may
> of course do so. But unless the GA improves the
> quality of its own deliberations first, the chances
> of acceptance seem rather low.

  Perhaps.  But the quality of deliberations should have little
to do with the motion gaining acceptance.

> Yes, this may turn
> out to be a vicious circle, but it can be broken
> (by hard work, willingness to compromise, good leaders
> and good rules, perhaps also voluntary contributions
> -- not by demanding more power and money without
> having working structures in place).

  Working structures are in place, have been.  Good leaders is a perception
issue.  Danny is a fairly good.  Hared work has and is still being done.
Many many voluntary contributions have been made, this motion not
withstanding.

>
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander

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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:33:03 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] threats on Internet Security

This authorized article illustrates a leading threat on the Internet:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/news/svfront/veri102201.htm
(reported by Brett Fausett to ncdnhc)

VeriSign certainly brings a lot to the Internet but they also,
- - can take down the network - they say that and it is obviously true
- - can upset the consumers through prices and privacy
- - probably block innovation
- - obviously risk an anti-trust action which would hamper the network
- - backup in Charlotte - i.e; on the east cost too
- - are unique: troubles of them for any reason would be dramatic for the 
world.

I note that they do not hide now the achievements of Plan B.
1. personal security of Mr. Straton Slavs and staff is of real importance 
to the World. This is a real issue about MdR meeting. Question: are such 
meetings worth the risk?

2. single points of weakness were to be addressed by the ICANN through 
competition fostering. There are different evaluations of the ICANN's 
results, but facts are that this has not succeeded so far. Contingency 
solutions are needed. This is an area of urgency for analysis.

FYI, two words are heard to name some risks in the DNS area:
- - "viruscom" used for some months as generic to any way of making user 
reach another destination than the one they wanted when they entered an URL.
- - "dons" Denial Of Name Service. Any of the ways to block access to Name 
Servers.

A question in that area: some DNS solutions "speed" the name resolution in 
calling several name servers in parallel. This obviously adds to the DNS 
load and traffic. I would be interested in having comments and in knowing 
if statistics exist on this?

Jefsey Morfin
Moderator, ICP-4 Mailing List
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:08:28 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] BB Straton, Bill and als.

The ``holy grail,'' said Straton Sclavos (Verisign Top), is to create a 
global voice and Internet directory to allow users to designate how and 
where they can be reached at anytime. The system would link phone and 
Internet capabilities so users need only a single identifier, either a 
number or Web address.

Let imagine having your telephone spammed all the day and night long. What 
an exciting prospect!

I feel the "holy crusade" is to fight that! He says this is no "big 
brother".  It is far worse: it is "big brotherhood".

This crusade should start in lobbying for Whois to be abolished - everyone 
knows that data are outdated - and replaced by whois protocol. This would 
make whois://domain.name the opt-in universal address for user information. 
Either on site or delegated to whois private services.

One of the most interesting feature would be te be able to send a mail to 
the webmester from an online form - possibly with paging/sms associated to 
it - without disclosing his mail.

Harald, may be could you help in telling the way his could be studied?

I know there is an RFC indicating the fax://domain.name and 
tel://domain.name are supported. Anyone knows the RFC reference?

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:09:49 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign Delete Discussion Group Straw Poll Results

Poll Background

In an attempt to gauge the current state of thinking within the icann-delete
discussion group, an informal straw poll was undertaken the week leading up
to October 23, 2001 to determine which proposals were currently favored by
the group. The ballot for this poll, as presented on October 17, 2001, was
as follows:
- ---ballot---

 There have been four proposals tabled for discussion. Please indicate with
 an "X" in the space provided which proposal you or your firm is *most
 likely* to support. If you do not feel that any of the proposals adequately
 solve the problems as described on the mailing list, please select "NONE".

 [  ] AfterNIC Post-Expiration Auction Proposal
 [  ] MelbourneIT/Tucows Random Assignment Joint Proposal
 [  ] SnapNames Parallel Registry Proposal
 [  ] Tucows "Verisign Obligations" Proposal
 [  ] NONE

 ---ballot---

This ballot was amended to include an "Other: Please specify" option on
October 19 and all participants were provided the opportunity to change
their vote.

Poll Results

The results of this informal poll are:
 [1 ] AfterNIC Post-Expiration Auction Proposal
 [6 ] MelbourneIT/Tucows Random Assignment Joint Proposal
 [3 ] SnapNames Parallel Registry Proposal
 [1 ] Tucows "Verisign Obligations" Proposal
 [0 ] NONE
 [3 ] OTHER: Please specify:
 - Sealed bid auction (modification of AfterNIC proposal
 - Keep the current system, but improve it (Whiting "Mousetrap")
 - IARegistry Optimization Proposal
 [1 ] ABSTAIN

Votes Cast: 15
Unique Stakeholders: 14
Abstentions: 1

Further information can be found at http://www.byte.org/rc-deletes including
several new proposals that have been put forth over the past few days.

I will be posting some commentary on the poll later today.

- -rwr

- --
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:32:28 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE

> Why would people pay for IPv6 Address Space when IPv8 Address Space is
FREE
> ?
>
> 2047 IPv8 Blocks have been FREEly allocated to IN-ADDR.<TLD> managers.
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
> On October 25, 2001 Microsoft will launch Windows XP which supports IPv8
> Addressing.
> Companies like New.Net are making it possible for people to register
> IN-ADDR.<TLD> names.
> Companies like TuCows are helping to break down the .COM monopoly with
.INFO
> names.
> http://www.IN-ADDR.INFO
>
> The .BIZ Community is growing. It is time to build a new Internet based on
> fair IP allocations.
> The Proof-of-Concept work on the IPv4 Internet can continue, but true
> pioneers need to move on.
> The technology is now in place to route around the I* organizations, "It
> Seeks Overall Control".
> http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/ProofConcept/index.html
>
> Do you use a 2002:<IPv4>:0000 prefix ?
> http://www.dot-arizona.com/IPv8/IPv4/
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
>
> [email-masked]
> http://www.unir.com
> http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
> http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gerard Ross" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:32 AM
> Subject: RE: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE
>
>
> > Hello all
> >
> > As a follow-up to Thomas's announcemnt, I just wanted to add some
> additional
> > information regarding the IPv6 discussions at the APNIC and RIPE NCC
> > meetings.
> >
> > Detailed presentations summarising the policy principles discussed at
the
> > APNIC meeting are available on the APNIC web site at:
> >
> >  http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/amm/
> >
> > A further summary of the principles accepted by the APNIC community,
> > including details of the criteria for initial allocations and the size
of
> > initial allocations, was presented at RIPE 40 and is available at:
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-40/presentations.html#ipv6-li
> > r
> >
> > (The presentation outlining the proposal by Dave Pratt is also available
> > there.)
> >
> > It should be noted that discussions at these meetings have identified a
> need
> > for an interim policy to be developed as soon as possible, so as to not
> > hinder IPv6 development. The recommendations agreed upon at APNIC and
RIPE
> > meetings have recognised this fact, and have anticipated that review of
> > these principles will be ongoing.
> >
> > Regards
> > - Gerard Ross
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Gerard Ross, Documentation Manager                  <[email-masked]>
> > Asia Pacific Network Information Centre             ph +61 7 3367 0490
> > http://www.apnic.net                                fx +61 7 3367 0482
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> > > Thomas Narten
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 2:07 AM
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Summary of recent IPv6 discussions within APNIC and RIPE
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is a summary of recent activity related to IPv6 addressing
> > > policy. Credit goes to Richard Jimmerson for putting it together with
> > > help from RIPE and APNIC.
> > >
> > > This will serve as background for the upcoming v6 WG meeting in Miami,
> > > where these topics will be discussed.
> > >
> > > Thomas (with WG Chair hat in place)
> > >
> > > ***** APNIC *****
> > >
> > > There was a joint IPv6/Policy session relating to iPv6 address policy
> > > held at the last APNIC meeting.  During this session there were two
> > > separate IPv6 policy proposals made.  The following day these two
> > > policy proposals were merged.  There was consensus that many of the
> > > principles outlined in the proposal document were sound, but there
> > > was general agreement that further discussion was needed at the global
> > > level -- in particular, the initial allocation size from the RIRs.
> > >
> > > There was consensus that the IPv6 bootstrap period should be extended
> > > until the next IPv6 policy is implemented, with the understanding that
> > > the next policy takes account of bootstrapping needs.
> > >
> > > There was consensus to accept the proposal for APNIC to assign IPv6
> > > address space to Internet exchanges.  The assignment size agreed upon
> > > was a /64.
> > >
> > > ***** RIPE NCC *****
> > >
> > > There were two separate sessions that covered the topic of IPv6
> > > addressing policy -- 1) The IPv6/LIR joint session
> > >                      2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session
> > >
> > > 1) The IPv6/LIR joint session discussed the IPv6 policy proposal
> > > language, summarized the discussions that took place at the APNIC
> > > meeting, and reviewed a proposal submitted by Dave Pratt.
> > >
> > > There were many similarities between these three offerings.  The group
> > > seemed to agree on principles such as using the HD-ratio for checking
> > > utilization, the fact current IPv4 utilization would be considered
> > > when evaluating an initial request for IPv6 address space, and many
> > > other points from the IPv6 proposal language, but objected to the
> > > references to "slow start," as there was concern the minimum
allocation
> > > size may be too small and that LIRs would have to return to the RIR
> > > too often.
> > >
> > > One of the main points that was left open and identified as needed
> > > further discussion was the initial allocation size from the RIR.  It
> > > was agreed that this point and others would be best discussed on a
> > > global mailing list so the discussions of the three regions remained
> > > in sync.
> > >
> > > It was also decided that the RIRs should continue work on an interim
> > > policy document with the help of the community while these discussions
> > > are going on.  It was felt that even though there are still some open
> > > issues, the new proposed policies are much better than what we have
now.
> > >
> > > 2) The IPv6/LIR/EIX joint session discussed the proposed policy of
> > > the RIPE NCC assigning IPv6 address space to exchange points.  There
was
> > > much discussion about what size to assign IXes (/64 or /48).  It was
> > > argued some IXes may need more than a /64, so a /48 should be assigned
> > > for purposes of administrative ease.  Many people supported this
notion,
> > > as almost every other type of "site" would receive a /48 anyway.
> > >
> > > It was also observed that IXes may not even need space from the RIR
> > > and that they could use link-local addresses.  It was countered that
> > > link-local may not work because some exchange customers may want to
> > > traceroute to one another.
> > >
> > > The final consensus was that exchange points should receive their
> > > IPv6 address space from a RIR.
> > >
> >
> >
>

- --
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:19:34 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

On 10:00 23/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > I'm not emotionally attached to the DNSO as such. We
> > probably agree that ICANN decisions on domain names
> > currently are not "Internet community consensus" but
> > rather "some major stakeholders consensus".
>
>   Even this is a bit reaching a conclusion at best, Alex.

You may have noted that slight another wording change
by Stuart Lynn and others: "the ICANN community".

An ICANN community consensus is when Stuart,
Louis and Joe make taken a "BoD" decision. You may
recall that there is "ICANN community consensus"
even on non existing documents (Stockholm).

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:39:29 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: participation in IETF meetings

You could also use the Internet to have meetings.

Jim Fleming 
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com 
0:212 - BIZ World

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: participation in IETF meetings

> On 10/23/01 at 9:49 AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
> >Many have been the meetings where folks who want to actively 
> >participate in that meeting are unable to get in or unable to sit 
> >down.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I really think this is a problem with the 
> person/persons chairing the meeting. If you are the chair of a 
> working group whose meeting room is too small, you've got some 
> choices:
> 
> 1. If this happened in the past, you need to ask for a bigger meeting 
> room. However, I understand this is not always possible.
> 
> 2. Before your WG meeting, ask on the mailing list (which all active 
> participants should be reading anyway) for all people who are 
> planning on attending the meeting and actively participating to send 
> you a piece of e-mail. Count. When you get to the room at the 
> meeting, count off that many seats in the front rows. Add 10 for 
> useful IESG/IAB members. Add a bunch if you know your WG is going to 
> have cross-area interest where some people will be attending who 
> don't subscribe to the WG list. Cordon off the section with some 
> paper signs which read "ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS ONLY". No, it won't stop 
> everyone, but it will help things.
> 
> 3. If people are blocking the door during the meeting, be a traffic 
> cop. Go to the door and say, "If you are staying, move in to the 
> opposite side of the room away from the door. Otherwise, leave." The 
> area behind where the chair usually sits is a fine place to stick 
> people. If it gets totally out of hand, you may have to conduct the 
> meeting by standing in the door; people who are just loafing hate 
> sitting right next to the chairperson anyway.
> 
> 4. (Up on soapbox again) Do not allow lecture-style presentations in 
> your WG meeting, or at the very least do not let anyone present 
> introductory material which could be posted to the list. These kinds 
> of things encourage people to come to the meeting to try to learn. 
> That's not why we're having these meetings. There should be NO NEW 
> INFORMATION presented at WG meetings. If at least an introduction to 
> the topic has not been written up and posted to the list, discussion 
> of that topic should not be allowed in the WG meeting. The content of 
> a WG meeting should be without surprise.
> 
> Personally, I think this is a fine idea for BOFs too: You're posting 
> an agenda before the meeting anyway; make sure any needed information 
> is written up and posted before the meeting and make sure that the 
> agenda has URLs for that information. Now, I understand that BOFs are 
> in a somewhat different position and sometimes there's going to have 
> to be presentation of new material in BOF meetings, but that needn't 
> always be the case. WGs, of course, have no excuse.
> 
> pr
> -- 
> Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
> 

- --
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:23:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: The ICANN community (Re: [ga] Ballot question)

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, at 15:19 [=GMT+0200], Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> On 10:00 23/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
> >Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > > I'm not emotionally attached to the DNSO as such. We
> > > probably agree that ICANN decisions on domain names
> > > currently are not "Internet community consensus" but
> > > rather "some major stakeholders consensus".
> >
> >   Even this is a bit reaching a conclusion at best, Alex.
> 
> You may have noted that slight another wording change
> by Stuart Lynn and others: "the ICANN community".
> 
> An ICANN community consensus is when Stuart,
> Louis and Joe make taken a "BoD" decision. You may
> recall that there is "ICANN community consensus"
> even on non existing documents (Stockholm).

Since the term "the ICANN community" figures a lot in recent texts
issued by ICANN, it may be usefull if some definition of it was
launched 'officially'. Does the ICANN community include, e.g., the At
Large members? Has it any democratic connotation? What is the
difference with 'Net users'?

The burden of the definition is on those who introduce and use the
term, naturally. I could try some sarcasm, but will resist the
temptation. So far I thought it was clever rhetorics. I hope I am
wrong. 

Looking forward to an official reply.

- -- 
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:18:01 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN will only be doing "Proof-of-Concept" testing...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

> On 10:00 23/10/01, Jeff Williams said:
> >Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > > I'm not emotionally attached to the DNSO as such. We
> > > probably agree that ICANN decisions on domain names
> > > currently are not "Internet community consensus" but
> > > rather "some major stakeholders consensus".
> >
> >   Even this is a bit reaching a conclusion at best, Alex.
>
> You may have noted that slight another wording change
> by Stuart Lynn and others: "the ICANN community".
>
> An ICANN community consensus is when Stuart,
> Louis and Joe make taken a "BoD" decision. You may
> recall that there is "ICANN community consensus"
> even on non existing documents (Stockholm).
>
> Jefsey
>

http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/ProofConcept/index.html
"In order to calm people's fears and to encourage experimentation and
expansion, the U.S. Department of Commerce helped to create ICANN under the
assumption that ICANN will only be doing "Proof-of-Concept" testing, of a
limited number of new TLDs. The Early Experimentation with .BIZ helped to
show that the Internet would not crash. Some people incorrectly think that
ICANN is some sort of new world government and they will be the leaders of
that government. They do not accept that ICANN will not be needed once
Full-Scale Deployment takes place. The new TLD Communities will be quite
capable of governing themselves. The Internet Architecture is counter to the
notion of a single point of failure, like ICANN."

Jim Fleming
Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

- --
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:17:29 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Tainted BC elections

Our collegues in the Business Constituency are at it again, this time 
breaking their own Charter rules in the middle of an election for NC 
representatives.   As was to be expected, Grant, Philip, and Marilyn have 
been nominated for office... but this time it appears that Marilyn has a 
challenger in her own geographical area.

As Grant and Philip are running unopposed, they will, of course, be declared 
winners.  Here's where it gets interesting...  The BC Charter states:

IIC3e. If, at any stage of the election process described above, an 
individual working for or representing an identifiable business sector is 
elected, all other representatives or individuals working for or representing 
that same business sector will be eliminated from the election process.

Grant and Marilyn both work for the same identifiable business sector.   
Grant draws his paycheck from Clear Communications (a telco) and Marilyn 
draws her paycheck from AT&T.   If the BC had any respect for their own 
Charter, they would accordingly eliminate Marilyn from the election process 
as Grant is already (by default) a regional winner, and the other remaining 
contender from the North American zone would be advanced as the candidate for 
the contested NC seat.

Unfortunately, the BC seems to believe that they have a mandate to break the 
rules whenever required to preserve the sanctity of their private little 
club.  One has to wonder just how many times the BC will violate their 
Charter before ICANN reigns in this rogue constituency?

- --
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:36:39 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: participation in IETF meetings

Now, Jim, why would the Internet Engineering Task Force use the Internet to 
communicate in real time?

...

At 10:39 AM 10/23/2001 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote:
>You could also use the Internet to have meetings.
>
>Jim Fleming
>Why gamble with a .BIZ Lottery? Start a real .BIZ Today !
>http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
>0:212 - BIZ World
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:24 AM
>Subject: Re: participation in IETF meetings
>
>
> > On 10/23/01 at 9:49 AM -0400, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > >Many have been the meetings where folks who want to actively
> > >participate in that meeting are unable to get in or unable to sit
> > >down.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I really think this is a problem with the
> > person/persons chairing the meeting. If you are the chair of a
> > working group whose meeting room is too small, you've got some
> > choices:
> >
> > 1. If this happened in the past, you need to ask for a bigger meeting
> > room. However, I understand this is not always possible.
> >
> > 2. Before your WG meeting, ask on the mailing list (which all active
> > participants should be reading anyway) for all people who are
> > planning on attending the meeting and actively participating to send
> > you a piece of e-mail. Count. When you get to the room at the
> > meeting, count off that many seats in the front rows. Add 10 for
> > useful IESG/IAB members. Add a bunch if you know your WG is going to
> > have cross-area interest where some people will be attending who
> > don't subscribe to the WG list. Cordon off the section with some
> > paper signs which read "ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS ONLY". No, it won't stop
> > everyone, but it will help things.
> >
> > 3. If people are blocking the door during the meeting, be a traffic
> > cop. Go to the door and say, "If you are staying, move in to the
> > opposite side of the room away from the door. Otherwise, leave." The
> > area behind where the chair usually sits is a fine place to stick
> > people. If it gets totally out of hand, you may have to conduct the
> > meeting by standing in the door; people who are just loafing hate
> > sitting right next to the chairperson anyway.
> >
> > 4. (Up on soapbox again) Do not allow lecture-style presentations in
> > your WG meeting, or at the very least do not let anyone present
> > introductory material which could be posted to the list. These kinds
> > of things encourage people to come to the meeting to try to learn.
> > That's not why we're having these meetings. There should be NO NEW
> > INFORMATION presented at WG meetings. If at least an introduction to
> > the topic has not been written up and posted to the list, discussion
> > of that topic should not be allowed in the WG meeting. The content of
> > a WG meeting should be without surprise.
> >
> > Personally, I think this is a fine idea for BOFs too: You're posting
> > an agenda before the meeting anyway; make sure any needed information
> > is written up and posted before the meeting and make sure that the
> > agenda has URLs for that information. Now, I understand that BOFs are
> > in a somewhat different position and sometimes there's going to have
> > to be presentation of new material in BOF meetings, but that needn't
> > always be the case. WGs, of course, have no excuse.
> >
> > pr
> > --
> > Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
> >
>
>--
>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 #810
************************