Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #812
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, October 24 2001         Volume 01 : Number 812

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:56:06 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly,

Where are those posted?

> a motion has been put forth, ...

> 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

So far, so good.
 
> 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.

Nonsense. The GA is a forum for discussion, the NC an executive body. They
cannot and should not be on a "equal footing".

The NC should pay more attention to GA discussion, and it might be worth
talking about re-structuring the NC to give more input from users, but it
is pointless to suggest some second complex structure on an "equal footing".

The real issue for balanced representation is whether we get nine At Large
board members actually seated. The GA is essentially irrelevant to this,
except that we might see some campaign discussion in the GA forum.

Of course if we ever get a properly constituted board, it might choose to
fix some things, perhaps including the NC and constituency structure. We
might even see the appointed Task Forces replaced by open-to-anyone  
Working Groups.
 
> 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.

Once you start imagining the GA as one chamber of some sort of bicameral
structure, it needs budget, leaders, Board reps, ... No!

The budget would be a waste. All the GA needs to perform its actual 
function as an open discussion forum is a mailing list and an archive 
thereof.

We don't need leaders. We need facilitators, people who can help extract
a consensus from the mess of disagreements, personal agendas, ...

We don't need a GA Board rep. We need nine openly elected At Large members.

We don't need a bicameral structure. We need an NC that does its job.

> 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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 08:31:20 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

Sandy,

I like a lot of what you have said and disagree a little.

Here are the rules;
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.4.html

Also please go make your nine member position known on the at large forum at;
[email-masked]

Also please vote here in support of the motion.

I sure hope you do not consider this leading you but only facilitating your
contributions toward a consensus.

I could do this all day long so I disagree with your view on no need for funding.
Facilitators should be compensated.

Thanks for your contributions.

Sincerely,
Eric

Sandy Harris wrote:

> [email-masked] wrote:
> >
> > In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly,
>
> Where are those posted?
>
> > a motion has been put forth, ...
>
> > 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
>
> So far, so good.
>
> > 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.
>
> Nonsense. The GA is a forum for discussion, the NC an executive body. They
> cannot and should not be on a "equal footing".
>
> The NC should pay more attention to GA discussion, and it might be worth
> talking about re-structuring the NC to give more input from users, but it
> is pointless to suggest some second complex structure on an "equal footing".
>
> The real issue for balanced representation is whether we get nine At Large
> board members actually seated. The GA is essentially irrelevant to this,
> except that we might see some campaign discussion in the GA forum.
>
> Of course if we ever get a properly constituted board, it might choose to
> fix some things, perhaps including the NC and constituency structure. We
> might even see the appointed Task Forces replaced by open-to-anyone
> Working Groups.
>
> > 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.
>
> Once you start imagining the GA as one chamber of some sort of bicameral
> structure, it needs budget, leaders, Board reps, ... No!
>
> The budget would be a waste. All the GA needs to perform its actual
> function as an open discussion forum is a mailing list and an archive
> thereof.
>
> We don't need leaders. We need facilitators, people who can help extract
> a consensus from the mess of disagreements, personal agendas, ...
>
> We don't need a GA Board rep. We need nine openly elected At Large members.
>
> We don't need a bicameral structure. We need an NC that does its job.
>
> > 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-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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 10:50:34 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ballot question

|> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:56 AM
|> 
|> [email-masked] wrote:
|> > 
|> > In accordance with the rules and procedures of the 
|> > General Assembly,
|> 
|> Where are those posted?
|> 
|> > a motion has been put forth, ...
|> 
|> > 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
|> 
|> So far, so good.

Actually, I thought that Danny was very diplomatic. IMHO, the NC has done
nothing but exacerbate the situation. Also, the NC doesn't represent all of
us, are you arguing that it doesn't need to?

|> > 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.
|> 
|> Nonsense. The GA is a forum for discussion, the 
|> NC an executive body. They cannot and should not 
|> be on a "equal footing".

IOW, you think that the GA should be nothing other than a kaffeeklatsch. I
hope that you don't mind if I disagree, vehemently? The question that brings
up is "Why is the GA there?" or more accuratly "Why should anyone waste time
participating?". This also speaks against all organizational theory.
Specifically, a discussion group that has no visible purpose, or impact,
quickly devolves to mundane discussions. After all, none of ithe discussions
matter. Therefore, why worry about decorum and how can it focus on anything?
If it thus lacks focus, why should any of the participants remain and what
good is any consensus one may derive from such a group?

|> The NC should pay more attention to GA discussion, and it 
|> might be worth talking about re-structuring the NC to give 
|> more input from users, but it is pointless to suggest 
|> some second complex structure on an "equal footing".

The three most useless words, in the english language, are "could",
"should", and "would". Do you know why? Because, they are all words of
disempowerment. They either disempower the speaker, or those they are being
used against. Implicit in their use is the feeling of powerlessness...an
accession to things that can/may/will not change. They have long ago
acknowleged what they "should" do, but that pesky word allows them to NOT do
it and they don't do it. Any organization that has an option of not doing
something that takes effort, will take that option. The NC is no different.
The NC has become a road-block to those not respresented in the NC
constituency structure (those they "have" to listen to, as opposed to those
they "should" listen to). The track-record shows that the NC does not and
will not listen to any, but the BoD and it's constituent members, period.
This is regardless of what they "should" do. As I stated in Jan01, I'd like
to do away with the present constituency structure altogether. I don't
believe that, politically, can happen. Thus, failing to remove the
road-block, this routes around the road-block. 

|> The real issue for balanced representation is whether we get 
|> nine At Large board members actually seated. The GA is 
|> essentially irrelevant to this, except that we might see 
|> some campaign discussion in the GA forum.

Bottom-line; the GA is irrelevant to ALL of it because the GA has no impact
anywhere! BoD member campaigns have hardly touched the GA lists. This is
what we intend to change with this motion. You forget that the DNSO has BoD
seats already. What this motion addresses is making the DNSO BoD seats more
accountable to domain name holders, in general. As constituted, the NC is
not accountable to all domain name holders, period, and ONLY the NC can
elect/appoint the DNSO BoD seat. Does that representative bother to keep the
GA informed about the goings-on of the ICANN BoD? No, he doesn't. Does he
keep the NC informed? Yes, he does. Does even the NC keep the GA informed?
No, they don't. Do the NC members keep their constituents informed? Yes,
they do. The salient realization is that the constituencies Do NOT represent
all the domain name holders. MHSC is only one such non-represented member
and New.Net is another, the general domain name holder population
(individual domain name holders) are a huge bunch more. By default, we are
all in the GA, which has no vote at all and therefore are
disempowered/disenfranchised. These very facts make a lie of ICANN
inclusiveness and consensus claims and declarations. As presently
constituted, the GA is a sham constituency.

|> Of course if we ever get a properly constituted board, it 
|> might choose to fix some things, perhaps including the 
|> NC and constituency structure. We might even see the 
|> appointed Task Forces replaced by open-to-anyone 
|> Working Groups.

Whilst you may be involved in the ALSO formation movement, MHSC is not and
for very good reason. The AtLarge consists of end-user/consumers. While MHSC
caters to them, it is not them. By definition, that is true for every domain
name holder (DNH) extant. Every DNH provides information or services from
their domain. Consumer needs are not provider needs, even if the provider
may also be a consumer. This was recognized in the very begining (Green
Paper) and no one has ever doubted that (political mechinations not with
standing).

|> > 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.
|> 
|> Once you start imagining the GA as one chamber of some sort 
|> of bicameral structure, it needs budget, leaders, Board reps, ... No!

Yes, for all of the reasons I have stated above. Do you have something other
than an emotional reaction to this?

|> The budget would be a waste. All the GA needs to perform its actual 
|> function as an open discussion forum is a mailing list and 
|> an archive thereof.

If this is what is decided then the GA should die and a similar fate should
befall the ALSO.

|> We don't need leaders. We need facilitators, people who 
|> can help extract a consensus from the mess of disagreements, 
|> personal agendas, ...

|> We don't need a GA Board rep. We need nine openly elected At 
|> Large members.

Excuse me, we are talking about DNSO board reps that already exist. We are
talking about making existing reps more accountable. DNSO != ALSO. I suggest
that you remember where you are.

|> We don't need a bicameral structure. We need an NC that does its job.

see above. I believe that the NC is doing it's job. It is simply not the job
it "should" (there's that pesky word again) be doing. As constituted, there
is no way to alter the behavior of the NC, therefore the only recourse
remaining is to route around the NC. I suggest that you go thorough the
DNSO/WG-Review archives.

|> > 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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:38:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ballot question

Roeland --

	I agree with you that the NC is ill-serving the domain name
community.  The question is whether the alternative presented by this
motion is adequately developed.  It's not enough to say that there should
be a bicameral structure; if you want anybody outside the GA to take the
motion seriously, you need to describe what that means.  Is the idea that
the GA and NC should have to agree on all three DNSO Board members?  Or
that the NC gets two and the GA gets one?  Or what?  (Is the "Advocate"
just another name for the Board member selected by the GA, and the
"Consensus Leader" another name for the Chair?)

	One consequence of a "bicameral" system, I assume, would that both
the GA and the NC would have to agree on a policy before it could be
deemed to have consensus support.  (This would address the existing skew
in the NC structure -- though the ultimate outcome would likely be to make
formal DNSO action even more irrelevant to the ICANN policy process than
it is now, leaving real policy-making power even more firmly in the hands
of ICANN staff, who would then negotiate privately with the heavy hitters
on the NC.)  Would there be other consequences of establishing a bicameral
system -- that is, besides electing Board members and declaring consensus
- -- or is that it?  What sort of budget and staff are being contemplated?  
The motion drafters would do well to list the specific, practical aspects
of the structure they have in mind (starting by listing exactly what
powers the NC has today, and how the proposed change would affect the
exercise of those powers); if they can do that, then we don't need to
argue about the "bicameral" label.

Jon

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:56 AM
> |> 
> |> [email-masked] wrote:
> |> > 
> |> > In accordance with the rules and procedures of the 
> |> > General Assembly,
> |> 
> |> Where are those posted?
> |> 
> |> > a motion has been put forth, ...
> |> 
> |> > 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
> |> 
> |> So far, so good.
> 
> Actually, I thought that Danny was very diplomatic. IMHO, the NC has done
> nothing but exacerbate the situation. Also, the NC doesn't represent all of
> us, are you arguing that it doesn't need to?
> 
> |> > 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.
> |> 
> |> Nonsense. The GA is a forum for discussion, the 
> |> NC an executive body. They cannot and should not 
> |> be on a "equal footing".
> 
> IOW, you think that the GA should be nothing other than a kaffeeklatsch. I
> hope that you don't mind if I disagree, vehemently? The question that brings
> up is "Why is the GA there?" or more accuratly "Why should anyone waste time
> participating?". This also speaks against all organizational theory.
> Specifically, a discussion group that has no visible purpose, or impact,
> quickly devolves to mundane discussions. After all, none of ithe discussions
> matter. Therefore, why worry about decorum and how can it focus on anything?
> If it thus lacks focus, why should any of the participants remain and what
> good is any consensus one may derive from such a group?
> 
> |> The NC should pay more attention to GA discussion, and it 
> |> might be worth talking about re-structuring the NC to give 
> |> more input from users, but it is pointless to suggest 
> |> some second complex structure on an "equal footing".
> 
> The three most useless words, in the english language, are "could",
> "should", and "would". Do you know why? Because, they are all words of
> disempowerment. They either disempower the speaker, or those they are being
> used against. Implicit in their use is the feeling of powerlessness...an
> accession to things that can/may/will not change. They have long ago
> acknowleged what they "should" do, but that pesky word allows them to NOT do
> it and they don't do it. Any organization that has an option of not doing
> something that takes effort, will take that option. The NC is no different.
> The NC has become a road-block to those not respresented in the NC
> constituency structure (those they "have" to listen to, as opposed to those
> they "should" listen to). The track-record shows that the NC does not and
> will not listen to any, but the BoD and it's constituent members, period.
> This is regardless of what they "should" do. As I stated in Jan01, I'd like
> to do away with the present constituency structure altogether. I don't
> believe that, politically, can happen. Thus, failing to remove the
> road-block, this routes around the road-block. 
> 
> |> The real issue for balanced representation is whether we get 
> |> nine At Large board members actually seated. The GA is 
> |> essentially irrelevant to this, except that we might see 
> |> some campaign discussion in the GA forum.
> 
> Bottom-line; the GA is irrelevant to ALL of it because the GA has no impact
> anywhere! BoD member campaigns have hardly touched the GA lists. This is
> what we intend to change with this motion. You forget that the DNSO has BoD
> seats already. What this motion addresses is making the DNSO BoD seats more
> accountable to domain name holders, in general. As constituted, the NC is
> not accountable to all domain name holders, period, and ONLY the NC can
> elect/appoint the DNSO BoD seat. Does that representative bother to keep the
> GA informed about the goings-on of the ICANN BoD? No, he doesn't. Does he
> keep the NC informed? Yes, he does. Does even the NC keep the GA informed?
> No, they don't. Do the NC members keep their constituents informed? Yes,
> they do. The salient realization is that the constituencies Do NOT represent
> all the domain name holders. MHSC is only one such non-represented member
> and New.Net is another, the general domain name holder population
> (individual domain name holders) are a huge bunch more. By default, we are
> all in the GA, which has no vote at all and therefore are
> disempowered/disenfranchised. These very facts make a lie of ICANN
> inclusiveness and consensus claims and declarations. As presently
> constituted, the GA is a sham constituency.
> 
> |> Of course if we ever get a properly constituted board, it 
> |> might choose to fix some things, perhaps including the 
> |> NC and constituency structure. We might even see the 
> |> appointed Task Forces replaced by open-to-anyone 
> |> Working Groups.
> 
> Whilst you may be involved in the ALSO formation movement, MHSC is not and
> for very good reason. The AtLarge consists of end-user/consumers. While MHSC
> caters to them, it is not them. By definition, that is true for every domain
> name holder (DNH) extant. Every DNH provides information or services from
> their domain. Consumer needs are not provider needs, even if the provider
> may also be a consumer. This was recognized in the very begining (Green
> Paper) and no one has ever doubted that (political mechinations not with
> standing).
> 
> |> > 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.
> |> 
> |> Once you start imagining the GA as one chamber of some sort 
> |> of bicameral structure, it needs budget, leaders, Board reps, ... No!
> 
> Yes, for all of the reasons I have stated above. Do you have something other
> than an emotional reaction to this?
> 
> |> The budget would be a waste. All the GA needs to perform its actual 
> |> function as an open discussion forum is a mailing list and 
> |> an archive thereof.
> 
> If this is what is decided then the GA should die and a similar fate should
> befall the ALSO.
> 
> |> We don't need leaders. We need facilitators, people who 
> |> can help extract a consensus from the mess of disagreements, 
> |> personal agendas, ...
> 
> |> We don't need a GA Board rep. We need nine openly elected At 
> |> Large members.
> 
> Excuse me, we are talking about DNSO board reps that already exist. We are
> talking about making existing reps more accountable. DNSO != ALSO. I suggest
> that you remember where you are.
> 
> |> We don't need a bicameral structure. We need an NC that does its job.
> 
> see above. I believe that the NC is doing it's job. It is simply not the job
> it "should" (there's that pesky word again) be doing. As constituted, there
> is no way to alter the behavior of the NC, therefore the only recourse
> remaining is to route around the NC. I suggest that you go thorough the
> DNSO/WG-Review archives.
> 
> |> > 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
> 

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

Sounds to me like you're being a cry baby Dave ;)

Have you bothered to read Marylin's position paper regarding "renegade
roots" like yours and ours?

C'mon David, get a clue dude! Exclusion is a good thing, it permits you
the luxury to whine and complain while no one is listening.

My suggestion is that you start by joining a friendly organization that
already represents your interests as a TLD Holder - http://www.TLDA.org

You might be surprised at just how welcomed you would find yourself,
coming in from out in the fringes of the industry that you bullied your
way into so arrogantly.

Or perhaps the reason that no one takes you seriously on this (The
Alternate, deprecated ICANN legacy system) side of the fence is you tried
to have your cake and eat it too by your sudden loss of depth perception
when brown nosing ICANN and embracing it's UDRP - yah that one got you
lots-o-demerits with even your own, now largely  disenfranchised,
registrants :) I couldn't believe my ears when your counsel, Mr Samovar
told me you guys 'thought' you were going to go with the UDRP since,
that's what you 'thought' everyone else was doing (meaning you guys had no
clue about responisibility to your registrants or anything having to do
with policy management). I ROFLMAOPMP'd for quite some time when you guys
pretty much told me you had no idea what that even meant or implied for
your registrants.

And then the infamous, "booty-buddy maneuver" with ICANN that backfired
and blew up in your face, while everyone else in the industry just sat
back and gobbled away from our popcorn bags - again, ROFLing away. Yeah,
just like your little operation was the only game in town, and never once
seeking support from the part of the community that you were, in
actuality, a member of.

It's almost to the point where no one even really takes you guys seriously
at all anymore - you warm up and try to cozy with ICANN and they spit in
your face. Then you try to identify what might have SOME kind of 
resemblance to 'home' so you can go and tattle-tale off to your mama :) 

When ICANN begins to consider you any thing more than a spec of dog-doo on
Toutan's shoe, when you actually begin to pose a serious commercial
potential in the marketplace, when you finally embrace yourself and your
brethren for what you really are, then and only then will anyone really
take notice of you. Then and only then will you find that you don't have
to bang on doors with rubber batter-rams left over from Chief Bill Gates'
militia. Then and only then will ICANN themselves approach the part of the
community that you truly belong and seek the reconciliation they will
eventually be compelled into.

If you keep acting as if you're the only game in town we'll all be more
than happy to continue accomodating you Dave :) 

You operate a "Competing Root System", and it's time you bozos woke up and
realized that the most important asset you have as a Registry/Registrar is
that of your registrants - You can start by guaranteeing them some basic
rights by virtue of their having registered domains through you.

I'll bet you don't even realize that The PacificRoot points to your TLDs
do you? That's why thousands of your customers use our root instead of
yours.

See, we don't have to like The conceited business practices
of organizations like yours (clueless even, I'm glad you took my sound
advice prior to the announcement of your initial launch into existance
and reduced your number of TLDs) in order to foster brotherhood,
cooperation, and rally to your support in our shared corner of the
industry. As a fellow constituent provider of services in the "Inclusive
Name Space" I'm going to give you the same advice Al gore Gave to Bill
Clinton durig the initial months of their first term in office:

"Get with the program Dave".

Or you could continue playing the part of the snot-nosed, petulent,
red-headed stepchild and both ICANN and the rest of the community will
continue ignoring you ;)  

BTW, Since we both live and work in the same town why don't we get
together for dinner during the upcoming November meetings? I'll even let
you pick up the tab :)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, David Hernand wrote:

> Members of the Names Council:
> 
> New.net feels compelled to elevate to the attention of the Names Council
> certain recent actions of the Business Constituency to deny the efforts of
> our company to participate in ICANN processes as a member of the Business
> Constituency.  We bring this matter before the Names Council as a last
> resort after making repeated unsuccessful attempts to resolve it first with
> leadership of the Business Constituency.
> 
> Earlier this year, New.net applied for membership in the Business
> Constituency.  As many of you know, New.net does not fall into the category
> of an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, an ISP or any of the other
> constituencies within the DNSO, and yet we do operate a business that relies
> on the Internet for its existence and counts among the vast majority of its
> customers small and medium-sized enterprises that also rely on the Internet.
> Accordingly, we thought it logical for us to join the Business Constituency.
> We also thought that the Business Constituency would welcome our
> participation given recent statements of its leadership regarding their
> desire to broaden the Business Constituency's membership to include a larger
> number of small business interests to balance its current domination by
> large corporate interests.
> 
> After significant delay, our application was rejected by the Business
> Constituency's "Credentials Committee," which informed us that New.net does
> not meet the Business Constituency's charter redquirements because New.net
> is a "registry/registrar."  We then asked the BC Secretariat how such
> charter requirements comply with provisions in ICANN's Bylaws that expressly
> prohibit constituencies from denying membership to a person or entity on the
> basis that such person or entity also is a member of another ICANN
> constituency.  We received the following explanation:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BC secretariat [<mailto:[email-masked]>]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:58 AM
> 
> The BC charter does not exclude registries and registrars from membership
> merely because of their participation in another constituency. The Charter
> distinguishes providers of network connectivity/ transport, domain name and
> other services that enable the development of electronic business, from
> their customers. The BC is an independent voice for the customers of such
> providers.  It is the potential divergence of interests, not the mere
> participation in another ICANN constituency, that underlies the membership
> criteria.
> 
> By any reasonable interpretation of this definition, a large portion of the
> Business Constituency's current membership should be excluded: AOL, AT&T,
> British Telecom, Clear Communications, Deutsche Telecom, Korea Telecom, MCI
> Worldcom, Movicom, SITA (operator of the .aero registry), and Telefonica,
> just to name the obvious.  Indeed, two of the three BC representatives to
> the Names Council represent "providers of network connectivity/transport."
> 
> With all due respect to the ability of individual constituencies to devise
> their own rules and operating procedures, we implore the Names Council to
> intervene in what is obviously an egregious abuse of discretionary power. We
> specifically request that the NC demand that the BC either (a) immediately
> request the resignation of all BC members who meet the above criteria,
> including the resignation from the NC of the representatives from AT&T and
> Clear Communications; or (b) direct the BC to revise its rules within 30
> days to more broadly encompass the business community and reconsider
> New.net's application for membership.
> 
> Your timely attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> David Hernand
> CEO
> New.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David M. Hernand
> CEO
> New.net
> 15260 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 2000
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 USA
> Phone: 818-385-2004
> Fax:   818-385-2010
> [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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

Roeland,

You are too kind ;)

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Good luck. I remember when that particular exclusion was made, ostensibly to
> keep NSI out. It also excluded the rest of us whom were running registries.
> IODesign has the same problem. Yet, none of us are allowed in the registry
> constituency either (NSI is the exclusive member there), nor are we allowed
> to start our own without BoD approval. All that is left is the GA, which has
> no power.
> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: David Hernand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 7:01 AM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Cc: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision
> |> 
> |> 
> |> Members of the Names Council:
> |> 
> |> New.net feels compelled to elevate to the attention of the 
> |> Names Council
> |> certain recent actions of the Business Constituency to deny 
> |> the efforts of
> |> our company to participate in ICANN processes as a member of 
> |> the Business
> |> Constituency.  We bring this matter before the Names Council 
> |> as a last
> |> resort after making repeated unsuccessful attempts to 
> |> resolve it first with
> |> leadership of the Business Constituency.
> |> 
> |> Earlier this year, New.net applied for membership in the Business
> |> Constituency.  As many of you know, New.net does not fall 
> |> into the category
> |> of an ICANN-accredited registry or registrar, an ISP or any 
> |> of the other
> |> constituencies within the DNSO, and yet we do operate a 
> |> business that relies
> |> on the Internet for its existence and counts among the vast 
> |> majority of its
> |> customers small and medium-sized enterprises that also rely 
> |> on the Internet.
> |> Accordingly, we thought it logical for us to join the 
> |> Business Constituency.
> |> We also thought that the Business Constituency would welcome our
> |> participation given recent statements of its leadership 
> |> regarding their
> |> desire to broaden the Business Constituency's membership to 
> |> include a larger
> |> number of small business interests to balance its current 
> |> domination by
> |> large corporate interests.
> |> 
> |> After significant delay, our application was rejected by the Business
> |> Constituency's "Credentials Committee," which informed us 
> |> that New.net does
> |> not meet the Business Constituency's charter redquirements 
> |> because New.net
> |> is a "registry/registrar."  We then asked the BC Secretariat how such
> |> charter requirements comply with provisions in ICANN's 
> |> Bylaws that expressly
> |> prohibit constituencies from denying membership to a person 
> |> or entity on the
> |> basis that such person or entity also is a member of another ICANN
> |> constituency.  We received the following explanation:
> |> 
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: BC secretariat [<mailto:[email-masked]>]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:58 AM
> |> 
> |> The BC charter does not exclude registries and registrars 
> |> from membership
> |> merely because of their participation in another 
> |> constituency. The Charter
> |> distinguishes providers of network connectivity/ transport, 
> |> domain name and
> |> other services that enable the development of electronic 
> |> business, from
> |> their customers. The BC is an independent voice for the 
> |> customers of such
> |> providers.  It is the potential divergence of interests, not the mere
> |> participation in another ICANN constituency, that underlies 
> |> the membership
> |> criteria.
> |> 
> |> By any reasonable interpretation of this definition, a large 
> |> portion of the
> |> Business Constituency's current membership should be 
> |> excluded: AOL, AT&T,
> |> British Telecom, Clear Communications, Deutsche Telecom, 
> |> Korea Telecom, MCI
> |> Worldcom, Movicom, SITA (operator of the .aero registry), 
> |> and Telefonica,
> |> just to name the obvious.  Indeed, two of the three BC 
> |> representatives to
> |> the Names Council represent "providers of network 
> |> connectivity/transport."
> |> 
> |> With all due respect to the ability of individual 
> |> constituencies to devise
> |> their own rules and operating procedures, we implore the 
> |> Names Council to
> |> intervene in what is obviously an egregious abuse of 
> |> discretionary power. We
> |> specifically request that the NC demand that the BC either 
> |> (a) immediately
> |> request the resignation of all BC members who meet the above 
> |> criteria,
> |> including the resignation from the NC of the representatives 
> |> from AT&T and
> |> Clear Communications; or (b) direct the BC to revise its 
> |> rules within 30
> |> days to more broadly encompass the business community and reconsider
> |> New.net's application for membership.
> |> 
> |> Your timely attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated.
> |> 
> |> Best regards,
> |> 
> |> David Hernand
> |> CEO
> |> New.net
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 
> |> 
> |> David M. Hernand
> |> CEO
> |> New.net
> |> 15260 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 2000
> |> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 USA
> |> Phone: 818-385-2004
> |> Fax:   818-385-2010
> |> [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
> |> 
> --
> 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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #812
************************