Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #814
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, October 25 2001          Volume 01 : Number 814

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:13:49 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FW: ANNOUNCE: ICANN Marina del Rey Meetings, November 12-15, 2001

To date, I have not received a request from Philip Sheppard, in his capacity
of chair of the Names Council, for the GA and NC sessions to be webcast,
though I believe that Phil is aware of this issue.  I understand that Philip
and the Names Council are likely evaluating the possibility of a webcast
here, but I can't speak to the specifics; perhaps they'll jump in to
explain.

In addition to the need for a request from the NC, there's also an issue of
funding: As many on this list may already know, the Names Council ordinarily
provides ICANN with funding to defray a portion of webcast expenses.  So far
as I know, from briefly reviewing the Names Council's mailing list archives
(<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/ncarchives.html>), the Names Council has to date
neither allocated such funds, nor arranged an outside sponsor for this
purpose.

If Berkman Center staff is not asked by the responsible person or entity --
Philip and the Names Council, in this case -- to webcast the sessions and to
facilitate remote participation, archival, and other services, it's doubtful
that we'll do so.  Furthermore, if the DNSO does not provide funding to
ICANN to defray these expenses, as has been the case at prior ICANN
meetings, it's uncertain that we'll be able to do the work even if asked.

So, Joanna, to answer your first specific question: At this time, I cannot
confirm that the GA and NC sessions will be webcast.  So far as I know, no
decision has yet been reached, one way or the other, on this subject.  Of
course, I remain hopeful that this will work out for the best, as it has at
the past eleven meetings at which the Berkman Center has provided meeting
support services (<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/>).

I can, however, confirm that the November 12 Public Forum on At Large
Participation will be webcast.  Note its inclusion on
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/> (first row of the meeting
table).

Regards,

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet & Society
Harvard Law School

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:35 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:47:58 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Recent BC Membership Decision

Jefsey, your church versus yacht club brought tears of ironic laughter
to my
eyes, it felt good after so many tears of sorrow and patriotism felt
here
lately. (of course we leave out tears over my 13 yr. old daughter -
yikes!)

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> <snippage major>
> 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.

And here Jefsey is a major failing of the GA attitude.  When we play
"ball" in
school yards with really good hoodlum basketball players we use jungle
ball
rules.  You call it when you foul someone, not when they foul you. 
Anyone with
clout can play and cheat and be a prick.  The rules are defined by the
social
and economic status in the hood. (that is neighborhood which really is
defined
by the gang of hoodlums territory not neighbors)

That is what we have here, a hood where the BoD and other gang members
like
staff and Dyson and Roberts play ball but never call the foul upon
themselves.
But the Internet is mobile we can always play ball somewhere else.  But
that
may solve nothing.

In this atmosphere is where great men and women have risen above.  But
we must
start playing by Jungle Law rules and stop this marquis of kingsbury
crap.  We
are beginning to look like the disciplined soldiers standing in line as
we
march against armed men behind trees.

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:00:23 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last comment, for a while

These nit picky arguments over bi- whatever are divisive and non helpful.  I
think the world of Jefsey and Roberto but this little line of argument is much
more a "I have better suggestion ego thing than fair application of necessity.
These two arguments remind me of  - " In a perfect world we would blah, blah,
blah at a beauty pageant".  Knock it off and stand for something that can mean
something not something warm and fuzzy and yet logical that is totally
impractical.  I know it is hard but try to think with the rest of us here, you
both sound like nutty eccentric professors lost in ivory towers and Marylin is
reeling you in like young trout.

Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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

- --
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 21:00:53 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: ANNOUNCE: ICANN Marina del Rey Meetings, November 12-15, 2001

I believe VeriSign has underwritten the webcast/ remote participation costs
in the past. Perhaps Chuck Gomes would be willing to comment on this?

Regards,
Joanna

on 10/24/01 8:13 PM, Ben Edelman at [email-masked] wrote:

> To date, I have not received a request from Philip Sheppard, in his capacity
> of chair of the Names Council, for the GA and NC sessions to be webcast,
> though I believe that Phil is aware of this issue.  I understand that Philip
> and the Names Council are likely evaluating the possibility of a webcast
> here, but I can't speak to the specifics; perhaps they'll jump in to
> explain.
> 
> In addition to the need for a request from the NC, there's also an issue of
> funding: As many on this list may already know, the Names Council ordinarily
> provides ICANN with funding to defray a portion of webcast expenses.  So far
> as I know, from briefly reviewing the Names Council's mailing list archives
> (<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/ncarchives.html>), the Names Council has to date
> neither allocated such funds, nor arranged an outside sponsor for this
> purpose.
> 
> If Berkman Center staff is not asked by the responsible person or entity --
> Philip and the Names Council, in this case -- to webcast the sessions and to
> facilitate remote participation, archival, and other services, it's doubtful
> that we'll do so.  Furthermore, if the DNSO does not provide funding to
> ICANN to defray these expenses, as has been the case at prior ICANN
> meetings, it's uncertain that we'll be able to do the work even if asked.
> 
> 
> So, Joanna, to answer your first specific question: At this time, I cannot
> confirm that the GA and NC sessions will be webcast.  So far as I know, no
> decision has yet been reached, one way or the other, on this subject.  Of
> course, I remain hopeful that this will work out for the best, as it has at
> the past eleven meetings at which the Berkman Center has provided meeting
> support services (<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/>).
> 
> 
> I can, however, confirm that the November 12 Public Forum on At Large
> Participation will be webcast.  Note its inclusion on
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/mdr2001/> (first row of the meeting
> table).
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> Harvard Law School
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:35 PM
>> To: [email-masked]; [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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:34:38 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Songbird in the BC?

Jefsey, you indicated that Songbird recently became a member of the business 
constituency.  The Songbird website http://songbird.com/songbird/index.html 
seems to indicate that the company is primarily an ISP.  How then can it be a 
full member of the BC instead of merely an admitted observer?

BC Charter:  "Legally recognized for-profit business enterprises that have 
been in business for less than one year and companies whose predominant 
business is to be a registry, a registrar or an ISP cannot have full 
membership status, but may become observers."

I seems that Kent has developed the knack of being in a number of 
constituencies simultaneously while the rest of us remain unrepresented.  
Interesting.
- --
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 21:43:10 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Songbird in the BC?

Danny and all assembly members,

  Perhaps Kent's nose is a bit browner than most of the rest of us?
Just a thought...  >;)

[email-masked] wrote:

> Jefsey, you indicated that Songbird recently became a member of the business
> constituency.  The Songbird website http://songbird.com/songbird/index.html
> seems to indicate that the company is primarily an ISP.  How then can it be a
> full member of the BC instead of merely an admitted observer?
>
> BC Charter:  "Legally recognized for-profit business enterprises that have
> been in business for less than one year and companies whose predominant
> business is to be a registry, a registrar or an ISP cannot have full
> membership status, but may become observers."
>
> I seems that Kent has developed the knack of being in a number of
> constituencies simultaneously while the rest of us remain unrepresented.
> Interesting.
> --
> 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: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 13:07:56 +0900 (KST)
From: Chun Eung Hwi <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] fyi & question!

Dear GA members,

Does anybody know who drafted this document?
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00005.html)
Does it remain only to wait for rubber stamp of board?

- ----------------------------------------------------
*Draft* Proposed Action Statement for ICANN's Board

Based on an extensive outreach, discussion, research, and
consensus-building campaign the ALSC recommends that, on November 15,
2001, the ICANN Board adopt the following recommendations concerning
At-Large participation and representation.

(1) The Board affirms that individual Internet users have a significant
stake in ICANN's activities and should have the opportunity of fully
participating in ICANN.

(2) While the ALSC's final report remains open for comment and
consideration, the Board acknowledges that the following basic principles
should guide expedited action on At-Large:

(a) Create an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO) as a
regionally-based framework for informed participation of any interested
individual and for At-Large involvement in ICANN policy and
decision-making (including mechanisms to foster discussion among
individuals and with ICANN's decision-making bodies);

(b) Focus At-Large membership on an identifiable and vested community (an
ALSO electorate) to provide a practical mechanism for voter registration
and self-funding (e.g. The ALSC recommends that membership be based on
individual domain name holders);

(c) Provide a proportionate role for At-Large members in selecting ICANN's
Board (along with other ICANN constituencies) (e.g. The ALSC recommends 6
At-Large Directors in a 19 member Board).

(3) The Board requests that the ICANN CEO solicit expressions of interest
to determine the degree of interest in creating local and regional ALSO
entities that would support informed participation of interested
individuals and At-Large involvement in ICANN, and report the results to
the Board at the March 2002 ICANN meeting.

(4) The Board authorizes the extension of the ALSC until March 31, 2002 to
work with the Supporting Organizations, other interested parties, and
ICANN staff on proposing detailed plans for an At-Large membership, voter
registration, and a regionally-based, self-supporting ALSO.

- ------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667 
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   [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: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:50:55 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Answer to the NC from a petitioning Registrant

At 22:17 24/10/01 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>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?

Thank you Roberto, for that last comment. 

Meanwhile: I have sent this to the Task Force's  [email-masked]

Criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies

>>
>>1. Need
>>1.1 What need would the proposed new constituency fill?

The need for representation of Individual Domain Name Holders, a unique segment of DNS stakeholders that generally lacks the resources to work for the security of their Domain Names individually.

>>1.2 What would the proposed new constituency bring to the DNSO that is now
>>lacking?
>>

A better balance between constituencies of Domain Name Suppliers' representatives and Domain Name Registrant representatives.

>>2. Common interest
>>2.1 What commonality of interest would the members of the proposed new
>>constituency share?
>>

The personal concern of  an Individual Domain Name Holder for his/her  Domain Name.
This is distinct from the bond between a corporation or a non-commercial organization and their Domain Name.

>>3. Distinction
>>3.1 How much overlap in membership is there likely to be between the
>>proposed new constituency and existing constituencies,

Since the other constituencies do not accept Individual Membership, there is no overlap.
However, any of the other constituencies can  and will send their representatives into the new Individuals' Constituency in an effort to dominate it.
Therefore some safeguard must be drawn up to make sure that the new constituency really speaks for the typical interests of Individuals.

> the General Assembly

Many of the present and future members of the Individuals' Constituency are now gathered in the General Assembly, proving their strong interest in the ICANN processes.

>>and other parts of ICANN?
>>

There is no current representation of Individual Domain Name Holders elsewhere in the ICANN structure.

>>4. Representation
>>4.1 How representative of the stated common interest would the proposed new
>>constituency be?

Only a genuine democratic structure and a large number of genuine members can guarantee that. If the representatives do not work for the shared common interest, they are not (re)elected. This is the only way representativity can be safeguarded.

>>4.2 What steps have the petitioners taken to establish a hierarchy of
>>representativeness and openness within the proposed new constituency?
>>

They have created a Charter with an elected Executive Committee and other elective positions.
They have a website where the process of nominations and elections is detailed.

>>5. Alternatives
>>5.1 Are there alternative means of fulfilling the stated need besides
>>recognition of a new constituency?

Not really.
Alternatives like representation of Individual DN Holders through an At Large Director election
will 
1. be a long time in the making
2. will do nothing to balance the DNSO supply-side, demand-side interests
3. will move  needed negotiations and mutual understanding of perceived conflicting interests to Board level.

>>5.2 Are there other places within the ICANN structure where this need could
>>be fulfilled?
>>

see 5.1
The At Large structure is likely to be dominated by nationalistic, cultural and geo-divisional issues, and leave insufficient room for policy discussions that typically affect Individual Domain name Holders.

>>6. Organisation on a global scale
>>6.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
>>organise the proposed new constituency?

A website with a signup facility and Information about the constituency's internal and external activities has been going for more than 2 years. So far over 240 people have signed up, of which 219 email addresses still respond.
An active archived mailing list is maintained, which functions as a General Assembly.
A Charter with rules that protect against capture has been drawn up and ratified by the membership. www.idno.org/organiz.htm

>>6.2 Has the proposed new constituency demonstrated the capability to command
>>the financial and human resources required by a constituency?
>>

Non-recognition has stood in the way of proper fund raising and the ability to engage paid staff.
So far everything that has been accomplished has been done by individual sacrifice of time and money resources.

>>7. Support within the DNSO
>>7.1 What steps have the proponents of the proposed new constituency taken to
>>seek support from existing constituencies?
>>

A great deal has been undertaken and a great deal has been accomplished. Attendance of key IDNO founders at physical ICANN meetings has enabled the IDNO to persuade many of the other constituency members that an Individuals' constituency is needed in the DNSO and on the NC.
The straw polls that have been taken in Berlin (one third of the GA members was in favour), Santiago (over half of the GA members was in favour) and Yokohama (over 60 members raised their hands in favour and only 3 opposed) show the growth in support.

>>8. Impact assessment
>>8.1 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on existing
>>constituencies?

Existing constituencies will reap the benefit of direct and meaningful negotiations with representatives of Individual Domain Name Holders.
This will replace the bitter standoff that so far helped the Names Council to produce no significant policy input to the Board at all for over a year. 

>>8.2 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on the
>>finances and administration of the DNSO?

Initially the new constituency would need funding help and secretariat help from the DNSO to function properly.
Membership growth, to be expected as a result of the recognition, should make the constituency self funding after perhaps one year. 

>>8.3 What would be the impact of the proposed new constituency on policy
>>formation within the DNSO?

Such policy formation would at last become not only possible , but also credible and legitimate

*******
Please subscribe to [email-masked] to give more shape to the IDNHconstituency proposal.

- --
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 21:43:30 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Opinion - Re: [ga] Recent BC Membership Decision

Wednesday, Wednesday, October 24, 2001, 4:07:07 PM, Josh Elliott wrote:

> 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.

I agree with Josh here.

I may not like New.net's positions on policy matters, but they have a
right to participate, even if their stance is anti-ICANN.

- -- 
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 22:18:08 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Songbird in the BC?

On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 09:34:38PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> Jefsey, you indicated that Songbird recently became a member of the
> business constituency.  The Songbird website
> http://songbird.com/songbird/index.html seems to indicate that the
> company is primarily an ISP.

ISP's, by the definition used in the ISP and BC constituency,
fundamentally provide internet connectivity to end users.  Songbird does
not provide internet connectivity to anyone.  Instead, Songbird's
services are limited to website hosting, design, development, and
consulting.  Entities that provide these services are sometimes loosely
referred to as ISPs, because the term "ISP" is used differently by 
different people.  But as it is used in ICANN, Songbird is not an ISP.  
(There is another term common in the business, "Internet Presence 
Provider"). 

> How then can it be a full member of the BC
> instead of merely an admitted observer?

You could have figured this out yourself, but of course that would not 
serve your purpose.

> BC Charter:  "Legally recognized for-profit business enterprises that have 
> been in business for less than one year and companies whose predominant 
> business is to be a registry, a registrar or an ISP cannot have full 
> membership status, but may become observers."
> 
> I seems that Kent has developed the knack of being in a number of 
> constituencies simultaneously while the rest of us remain unrepresented.  
> Interesting.

Yes, it is interesting.  It proves that the claims that you and others
make about being unrepresented are simply bogus noise.  Anyone who
seriously wants to participate can do so.

- -- 
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 22:23:58 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] OF course Josh is right.

Our thoughts and prayers go to those who may be hurt and effected by the
horrible tragedies unfolding in Thailand.

Inclusion is the right way to act and the only proper course of action
and when a man with Josh's experience and familiarity suggests that
allowance rather than preclusion is warranted then we should listen and
take notice.

Mr. Walsh speaks well in this regard by supporting Josh and fortifying
the truth.

May we all learn from problems and do our duty to avoid them in the
future.

Eric

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

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 23:29:46 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Songbird in the BC?

At 10:18 PM -0700 24/10/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>Anyone who
>seriously wants to participate can do so.

Yeah. Uh-huh.

You obviously think participating is turning up and speaking.

I think participating is being listened to and having ones opinion taken
into account in the proceedings.

ICANN only listens to certain people in the script.

But why am I telling you this? You're one of the authors.

- -- 
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 22:39:27 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Songbird in the BC?

The following is one of the finest examples of elitist crap one can find.  I can
just see this - Old chap smoking a fancy pipe while directing his boy to clean
his eight iron,  "but of course anyone can join the club old boyo,  Oh and by
the way here is a statement regards ISPs my barrister drew up for your ignorant
understanding"

Get a grip Crispin your elitist days are numbered.  Tell us about the Yacht Club
deal.  Tell us about your consultancy with ICANN - how about a financial
disclosure?

Better yet disclose your relationship with the executive committee of our BoD.
Is there a stipend that the GA could use associated with such services.  While
Roberts tells us that ICANN cannot support a GA or an AL tell us how much they
afford on your services.  And you are a member of two Constituencies?

Come clean or drop your comments Mr. lonely bird.  I used to think that what you
do is your business but now I see that you take money that could allow
individual users a voice on the Internet.  I hope you sleep well.

Quite Sincerely,
Eric

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 09:34:38PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
> > Jefsey, you indicated that Songbird recently became a member of the
> > business constituency.  The Songbird website
> > http://songbird.com/songbird/index.html seems to indicate that the
> > company is primarily an ISP.
>
> ISP's, by the definition used in the ISP and BC constituency,
> fundamentally provide internet connectivity to end users.  Songbird does
> not provide internet connectivity to anyone.  Instead, Songbird's
> services are limited to website hosting, design, development, and
> consulting.  Entities that provide these services are sometimes loosely
> referred to as ISPs, because the term "ISP" is used differently by
> different people.  But as it is used in ICANN, Songbird is not an ISP.
> (There is another term common in the business, "Internet Presence
> Provider").
>
> > How then can it be a full member of the BC
> > instead of merely an admitted observer?
>
> You could have figured this out yourself, but of course that would not
> serve your purpose.
>
> > BC Charter:  "Legally recognized for-profit business enterprises that have
> > been in business for less than one year and companies whose predominant
> > business is to be a registry, a registrar or an ISP cannot have full
> > membership status, but may become observers."
> >
> > I seems that Kent has developed the knack of being in a number of
> > constituencies simultaneously while the rest of us remain unrepresented.
> > Interesting.
>
> Yes, it is interesting.  It proves that the claims that you and others
> make about being unrepresented are simply bogus noise.  Anyone who
> seriously wants to participate can do so.
>
> --
> 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-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 22:48:58 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Songbird in the BC?

Wednesday, Wednesday, October 24, 2001, 10:18:08 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 09:34:38PM -0400, [email-masked] wrote:
>> Jefsey, you indicated that Songbird recently became a member of the
>> business constituency.  The Songbird website
>> http://songbird.com/songbird/index.html seems to indicate that the
>> company is primarily an ISP.

> ISP's, by the definition used in the ISP and BC constituency,
> fundamentally provide internet connectivity to end users.  Songbird does
> not provide internet connectivity to anyone.  Instead, Songbird's
> services are limited to website hosting, design, development, and
> consulting.  Entities that provide these services are sometimes loosely
> referred to as ISPs, because the term "ISP" is used differently by 
> different people.  But as it is used in ICANN, Songbird is not an ISP.  
> (There is another term common in the business, "Internet Presence 
> Provider"). 

Actually, IAP and IPP differentiate internet access/infrastructure
providers and Internet Presence Providers, but both are generally
accepted as "Internet Service Providers."

The ISP constituency should permit the membership of IPP's. They
represent the single largest channel for the origination of domain
name registrations, which they handle on behalf of their user base,
and thus have a direct and compelling interest and stake in the DNS
process.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #814
************************