Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #813
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, October 25 2001          Volume 01 : Number 813

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recent BC Membership Decision

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Milton Mueller wrote:

> 
> This is a very disappointing development. I would 
> strongly urge the B&C to reconsider its decision and 
> its policies.
> 
> Companies should not be excluded from
> participation in the DNSO constituency structure
> simply because they advocate views that other
> members don't agree with.

Nor should Marylin be given the artistic license to draft her position
paper as such against the "Competing Root Systems".

It is her position and not that of those who have sought membership (only
to be excluded) in the BC. It's not the position of most of the BC
membership either, and for that reason I implore everyone who is a member
of the BC to VOTE AGAINST Marylin Cade in her current election bid this
month.

> 
> As the NC Chair knows, I objected to the Final Report of
> the DNSO Review Task Force and entered a minority report
> questioning the "representative" character of the DNSO
> constituency structure. My objections concerned the great 
> degree of overlap between certain constituencies and the 
> refusal to recognize new constituencies and open working 
> groups. 
> 
> This situation is worse than that. It seems
> to indicate that membership in constituencies 
> and access to the process can be denied based on 
> whether the people who are currently in control agree
> with you. In other words, not only is the structure 
> tilted toward business interests, but it seems to be rigged 
> to prevent even divisions WITHIN the business community
> from being aired and resolved! That kind of a closed, 
> self-reinforcing structure can only produce bad policies. 
> It drastically undermines the legitimacy of the DNSO 
> and ICANN.
> 
> When the gTLD constituency was formed I proposed 
> making it possible for prospective registries to be 
> members of the gTLD constituency - essentially, anyone 
> who had paid the $50,000 application fee to 
> participate in ICANN's new TLD process. 
> 
> Those companies are legitimate stakeholders who
> deserve to have a voice. And yet, our existing
> structure makes no room for them. It is, as I
> said at the time, equivalent to allowing Ford,
> General Motors, Toyota and Honda decide who
> gets the enter the auto manufacturing business.
> 
> So, excluded from participating in that venue 
> they try to join the general Business constituency.
> Again, the door is shut in their faces. 
> 
> Now, will our B&C representatives please tell
> us how New.net is "supposed" to participate?
> 
> If you are confident of the truth of your ideas you
> don't need to silence or exclude parties who
> disagree with you.
> 
> Either the B&C decision has to be reversed or the
> issue of who is eligible to join the gTLD constituency
> has to be reopened. I personally am sick to death of dealing with manipulation of the representative structures of ICANN.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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 12:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Inclusion/Outreach/Participation/Consensus

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Participants,
> 
> This or substantially similar language is what I found after Peter de
> Blanc directed me there to learn more.  Because of this language I got
> involved in the Wg-Review.  Of all of the insults the denial of allowing
> participation is by far the gravest.  It is not ability to attract
> participation that is the problem it is how we are treated when we try
> to participate.
> 
> I hereby ask that we in the GA reach a consensus that in our GA we
> believe that NewNet should be given membership in the BC.
> 

Yes I concur. I don't wish for anyone to think that I was suggesting that
new.net (or The PacificRoot) be continually denied their rightful
membership in the BC, just that David has in general steered his
organization as a buffoon would.

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 13:31:25 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recent BC Membership Decision

>It's not the position of most of the BC
>membership either, and for that reason I implore everyone who is a member
>of the BC to VOTE AGAINST Marylin Cade in her current election bid this
>month.

I agree. Remember, a vote for Marilyn is a vote for continual corporate
bullying.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 14:18:14 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recent BC Membership Decision

On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:45:44PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> This is a very disappointing development. I would 
> strongly urge the B&C to reconsider its decision and 
> its policies.

That's funny, given that the NCDNHC has exactly the same policy -- it 
excludes non-profit registries from membership, even if they are 
unquestionably non-profit organizations.

[...]

> Either the B&C decision has to be reversed or the
> issue of who is eligible to join the gTLD constituency
> has to be reopened.  I personally am sick to death of dealing with
> manipulation of the representative structures of ICANN. 

And of course we will reopen the NCDNHC policies...

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 14:37:41 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Recent BC Membership Decision

Wednesday, Wednesday, October 24, 2001, 2:18:14 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 01:45:44PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>> 
>> This is a very disappointing development. I would 
>> strongly urge the B&C to reconsider its decision and 
>> its policies.

> That's funny, given that the NCDNHC has exactly the same policy -- it 
> excludes non-profit registries from membership, even if they are 
> unquestionably non-profit organizations.

Which makes sense, but really only if those registries are ICANN
recognized.  Non-ICANN recognized registries should not be subject to
those rules.

After all, the reason it makes since for recognized (aka Valid)
registries is that they have another constituency representing their
direct interests.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:11:30 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council

Dave and all assembly members and/or BoD/staff members listed,

  Dave your issues and the questions outlining them have been ask
a number of times recently and in the past when the constituency model
was being discussed, (See archives of this forum).  However it seem
now appropriate yet again that they should be revisited given recent
events and occurrences.

  (See some of our thoughts as answers to your questions below)

DPF wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:05:46 +0200, "BC secretariat"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >Complaint by J. Morfin to the Names Council
> >
> >Further to the communication from J. Morfin addressed to
> >the Names Council, the Business Constituency and copied
> >widely, we would like to let the Council and others know
> >that the issue will be referred to the membership of the
> >Business Constituency. We regret taking the time of the
> >Council over this.
>
> For the first time ever I am cc'ing a GA post to the NC Chair and the
> ICANN President because I believe there is a vital issue of public
> policy involved here and I think it would be worthwhile to receive a
> considered opinion on this.
>
> First can I make clear I do not wish to address the specific complaint
> raised regarding the Business Constituency.
>
> The question of importance though is what role does ICANN and/or the
> Names Council have with regard to complaints about operation of
> constituencies.
>
> I can not accept that all issues about an operation of a constituency
> are internal to that constituency.  If that is the case does that mean
> when we finally get an individuals registrants constituency that if
> say I was to be elected President, and Jon Weinberg as Secretary and
> Kent Crispin as the Treasurer we could do absolutely whatever we
> wanted with the constituency?

  Good question and observation here.  The answer to you question would
seem to be no.  However the ICANN BoD recognizes these constituencies
as "ICANN Constituencies" per se.  As such, the ICANN BoD should field
any and all complaints as to their operation or practices and if a
complaint
has been made, the ICANN BoD is responsible for the oversight as indicated

clearly in the White Paper.

>
>
> Could we decline membership applications of people we don't like?

  In some constituencies it would seem the answer here is yes.

>
> Could we ignore election rules?

  Again given recent events, the answer here would also seem to be yes.
A better question is "Should constituencies set membership policies that
unduly or without merit restrict membership for organizations or
individuals
that do necessarily fit into that constituency?

> Could we change the charter without a
> vote merely by amending the website?

  Again the answer here given recent events, would seem also to be yes.

> Can a constituency change its
> basic charter without recourse to anyone external to the constituency?

  The right answer here should be no.  But again given recent events
with some constituencies, the answer seems to be yes.

>
>
> I think most people would agree that there does have to be some
> recourse against a constituency which goes "rogue" (not implying any
> have to date necessarily).
>
> So there seem to be three issues which should be clarified.  The first
> is to whom should complaints be legitimately directed?

  The ICANN BoD as they have oversight.

> Is it the
> Names Council?  Is it the ICANN General Counsel?  Is it the ICANN
> Board which recognises constituencies in the first place so hence has
> implicit power to un-recognise them.
>
> The second is whether we specify what sort of issues are appropriate
> to take to this higher authority.  One doesn't want every minor
> dispute over how a vote was conducted relitigated like it is the US
> Supreme Court.  But serious accusations of charter breaches are a
> different matter.  Where do we draw the line?

  Breaches of and existing and ICANN BoD approved charter should be
a problem that the ICANN BoD should address with all due haste.
Voting processes are a matter that should be handled by the constituency
itself with the approval of the members of the constituency and the ICANN
BoD approval before a change in those procedures is implemented as again,
the ICANN BoD has oversight in accordance with the White Paper and the
MoU.  Failure to do so in an proper and expedient manner is a breach
of contract that the ICANN BoD and staff have with the DOC/NTIA.

>
>
> The third issue is what remedies if any exist?  Is the only remedy the
> nuclear option of threatened non recognition of a constituency?  Can a
> constituency be instructed to do a particular action?

  The constituency can be instructed to do a particular action or face
immediate removal as a constituency and loose its voting rights on the
NC, amongst other potential penalties.

>
>
> I would welcome consideration and thoughts on the matters raised here.
>
> Ta
>
> 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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 22:17:54 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Last comment, for a while

Good evening.
I have been unable to participate to the debate lately as I would have 
liked. As this personal and professional situation will continue like this 
at least to the end of the year, it will be appropriate for me to 
unsubscribe from the list and follow the debate from the archives when I 
have the possibility.
I will try to be on the Webcast for the GA in MdR.
My last comment, for the time being, is on the ballot.
I do agree that there are things that need to be fixed in the DNSO, that it 
is a shame that the voice of the individual users and/or Registrants is not 
represented, but I can´t see the bicameral GA/NC as a solution, at least 
with the GA as is now.
The purpose of a GA in a properly working DNSO (i.e. in a DNSO where the 
major stakeholders *including users and/or registrants* are represented in 
the constituency system) is a forum for discussion, and an "agora" where the 
members of the different constituencies and the people that generally have 
interests at stake do freely debate and shape up the issues, before bringing 
them to the "executive body", which is, in my Weltanschauung, the NC.
If we want to have the GA to be a counterpower to the NC (more than the 
bicameral political systems of today the reference seems to me the "tribunus 
plebis" in the Roman consular system, in that their mandate was to represent 
who was not represented otherwise, while a bicameral system in general is 
based on the same electorate), we have to go to an elected body structure.
The problem is that the GA does not scale.
We always complain that there are only a couple of dozen active members, and 
possibly few hundreds readers. If we had any possible claim to 
representativeness, we should be at least on the thousands.
If we all had to be active, with, let´s say, a posts per day, the result 
will be that people that do not have this as their full time job will be 
unable to follow. And that exactly defeats the purpose.
Therefore, we need to have an elected representative body, to whom to 
delegate the power. And so we are back to a similar dilemma that the ALSC 
and NAIS are facing: to organize representative elections.
Let´s face it: people like the "frequent posters" on this list can have no 
substantive claim to speak for the millions of Internet users, and it will 
make little sense to create a governing body alternative to the NC with the 
current GA. Besides, the ICANN Board will never endorse the idea. But 
anyway, let´s wait for the results of the vote.
In the meantime, please be aware that I will be voting against.

Incidentally, doesn´t this side debate (for a lost cause, IMHO) reduce the 
momentum on the effort to progress on a proposal for the 
individual/registrant constituency? The Chair did the right thing in putting 
this to vote, as this was the request from the floor, but can´t we leave 
this issue to the voters, and concentrate discussion on the list on a 
proposal for Registrants/Users?

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

- --
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 18:28:34 -0400
From: Derek Conant <[email-masked]>
Subject: Opinion - Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

There may be issues and positions regarding this matter concerning opinion that
New.net is more destructive to the ICANN function than constructive.  It is
difficult to interpret New.net and its interest in becoming a member of the BC.  

It may be the case that New.net believes that it can validate its operation
through the BC process.  However, the BC may have developed opinion that New.net
has demonstrated that it is destructive to the ICANN function and that New.net
will only serve as a BC Member to disrupt the BC process to further its campaign
against ICANN.  

New.net is able to participate in the DNSO GA consensus process, like everyone
else.  Thus, New.net is not excluded from the ICANN consensus processes.  

New.net could be clearer with its communication that describes the basis of its
complaint about the BC decision.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman
Telephone:  (202) 801-0158 
E-mail:  [email-masked]

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
- --
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 16:07:07 -0700
From: "Josh Elliott" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Opinion - Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

I would think that if they are a business that does not fit into any of the
other constituencies, then they should be eligible in the BUSINESS
constituency.  The Constituency group model was created to INCLUDE as many
industry groups and sectors as possible - it should not EXCLUDE anyone.

If I own a barber shop, but I like ICANN politics and want to be involved, I
should be able to go to the BC.

Thanks,

Josh
Basic Fusion, Inc. (Member of the BC)

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Derek
Conant
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Opinion - Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

There may be issues and positions regarding this matter concerning opinion
that
New.net is more destructive to the ICANN function than constructive.  It is
difficult to interpret New.net and its interest in becoming a member of the
BC.

It may be the case that New.net believes that it can validate its operation
through the BC process.  However, the BC may have developed opinion that
New.net
has demonstrated that it is destructive to the ICANN function and that
New.net
will only serve as a BC Member to disrupt the BC process to further its
campaign
against ICANN.

New.net is able to participate in the DNSO GA consensus process, like
everyone
else.  Thus, New.net is not excluded from the ICANN consensus processes.

New.net could be clearer with its communication that describes the basis of
its
complaint about the BC decision.

Derek Conant
DNSGA President and Chairman
Telephone:  (202) 801-0158
E-mail:  [email-masked]

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
- --
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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:35:08 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: ANNOUNCE: ICANN Marina del Rey Meetings, November 12-15, 2001

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:29 PM
To: All Webcast Participants in Prior ICANN Meetings
Subject: ANNOUNCE: ICANN Marina del Rey Meetings, November 12-15, 2001

Greetings!

Because you participated remotely in one or more prior ICANN meetings, ICANN
would like to remind you of its upcoming meetings to be held in Marina del
Rey, California on November 12-15, 2001.  More information about the
meetings is available at <http://www.icann.org/mdr2001>.

If you plan to attend in person, please preregister via
<http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/#preregistration>.  NOTE: New for this
meeting, free preregistration is required for meeting attendance and
admission.  Preregistration also helps local organizers anticipate
attendance and allows you to be kept up to date with logistical updates as
they become available.

Webcast sessions tentatively include Public Forums (November 12 and 15),
Community Meetings (November 13 and 14), and a meeting of the ICANN Board of
Directors (November 15).  For more information about the webcast, including
technical requirements to participate, see
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001>.  If you plan to participate by
webcast, please preregister using
<http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/#preregistration> to be kept up to date with
logistical and technical updates as available, as well as to receive
announcements just before the start of each webcast session.

Finally, if you are not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list,
you may want to join it.  Subscription instructions are at
<http://www.icann.org/announcements>.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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 19:35:07 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ANNOUNCE: ICANN Marina del Rey Meetings, November 12-15, 2001

Ben,
For the avoidance of doubt, can you please confirm that provision has been
made for webcast and remote participation for both the GA session and the
preceeding At Large Session?

Thank you.

Regards,
Joanna

on 10/24/01 7:35 PM, Ben Edelman at [email-masked] wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:29 PM
> To: All Webcast Participants in Prior ICANN Meetings
> Subject: ANNOUNCE: ICANN Marina del Rey Meetings, November 12-15, 2001
> 
> Greetings!
> 
> Because you participated remotely in one or more prior ICANN meetings, ICANN
> would like to remind you of its upcoming meetings to be held in Marina del
> Rey, California on November 12-15, 2001.  More information about the
> meetings is available at <http://www.icann.org/mdr2001>.
> 
> If you plan to attend in person, please preregister via
> <http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/#preregistration>.  NOTE: New for this
> meeting, free preregistration is required for meeting attendance and
> admission.  Preregistration also helps local organizers anticipate
> attendance and allows you to be kept up to date with logistical updates as
> they become available.
> 
> Webcast sessions tentatively include Public Forums (November 12 and 15),
> Community Meetings (November 13 and 14), and a meeting of the ICANN Board of
> Directors (November 15).  For more information about the webcast, including
> technical requirements to participate, see
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001>.  If you plan to participate by
> webcast, please preregister using
> <http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/#preregistration> to be kept up to date with
> logistical and technical updates as available, as well as to receive
> announcements just before the start of each webcast session.
> 
> 
> Finally, if you are not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list,
> you may want to join it.  Subscription instructions are at
> <http://www.icann.org/announcements>.
> 
> 
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Harvard Law School
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 01:38:18 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recent BC Membership Decision

On 23:18 24/10/01, Kent Crispin said:
> > Either the B&C decision has to be reversed or the
> > issue of who is eligible to join the gTLD constituency
> > has to be reopened.  I personally am sick to death of dealing with
> > manipulation of the representative structures of ICANN.
>
>And of course we will reopen the NCDNHC policies...

IRT Kent Crispin.

Songbird, Kent Crispin's company recently joined the BC (I hope the expense 
was footed by the ICANN). An Internet catholic site support non-profit 
association I chair seeked NCDNHC Membership. It was denied membership and 
voting rights because I represent my own business at the DNSO/BC. I 
protested against that ad hominem position and give the example of Kent 
representing his yachting association at the NCDNHC with voting right.

Response by NCDNHC was that Kent should give up one of his voting rights: 
at BC or at NCDNHC. Kent denied it.

Seems that some are more equal than others. Or which constituency did you 
give-up voting rights?
Dave, please don't answer: "BC *after* having voted".

As I said to Marilyn, Philip and Grant: we are all grown boys. We know 
what, why and how they make it. It is OK with me as long as they do not 
pretend that it is consensus. There are a lot of people in here who do not 
go by the jungle law.

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

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

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 02:05:35 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last comment, for a while

On 00:17 25/10/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>If we had any possible claim to representativeness, we should be at least 
>on the thousands.

Dear Roberto,
your point is well made. I too opposed the very concept of bicameral for 
the same feelings. In such cases when I have no pre-thought position I try 
to take some time from different other perspectives.

The idea of Roeland and Danny is to balance the NC power. Kent objects 
saying that the NC is representative as being elected while the GA is only 
self-selected. You oppose the nature of the two structures and question the 
representativeness of the GA.

Let face it. The @large are the people considering themselves as ICANN 
stakeholders. As such they are the governance at its individual level. They 
have two ways of being present: individually as IDNHC, GA Member, ALSO, 
etc... and through the consistuencies. These are the same people. I am a 
Member of the BC, I should be a Member of the NCDNHC.. Bicameral - as you 
describe it perfectly - is two ways of electing people. What is the 
interest? to make my directly elected reps to control my indirectly elected 
reps so they do their job of representing me. NC is not really paying big 
attention to our positions, @large should remind them.

Now you say the GA is not representative. A few comments:
- - the GA is then no more: it is addition of the Constituencies plus who 
wants. So GA is more representative than the constituencies and therefore 
than the NC.

- - the GA is open to everyone. When they voted the death of the French King 
by one vote, there was some emergency as five representatives supporting 
the King did not make it to Pairs yet, and only 1.5% of the French people 
had participated into the last election. Yet no one challenge the vote.

- - again "I do not ask my telephone to be democratic, I ask it to work". The 
DNSO is no Parliament. It is a politico/technical advisory body. What we 
need to see represented are the problems and concerns. I pay a lot 
attention to Eric for that reason because he represents the problems of 
millions while I represent only the concerns of those who are aware.

So at the end of the day, "bicameral" is not the proper word, I agree, but 
it is a step in the proper direction I suppose.
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #813
************************