Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #861
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, November 20 2001          Volume 01 : Number 861

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:45:24 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Redelegation of Australian ccTLD

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:31:01 -0600, Jim Fleming wrote:

> It does not look like .AU made it in the Exclusive Root

Hi Jim

auDA is now the official delegate and ccTLD manager for .au:

See http://www.iana.org/root-whois/au.htm
and http://www.iana.org/reports/au-report-19nov01.htm.

I would take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation to Mr Chris
Disspain, the CEO of auDA, and other members of the auDA Board for their
determined efforts to ensure that the .au ccTLD is a fine example of
integrity and fair dealing.

May it ever be thus !!

FYI The .au ccTLD website can be found at http://www.auda.org.au/

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

Note: I am a member of the auDA Board speaking personally.  However, I am
sure that my good wishes will be shared by other members of the auDA Board.

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 14:53:05 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Well, At Least the Registrars Are Pleased . . . 

"Registrars attending the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) meetings this week came away pleased with the actions taken
by the often-criticized organization."

http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_924821,00.html

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 22:11:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] What Else is New?  DNSO/BC's suicide

Patrick and all assembly members,

  I think you paint a pretty bleak picture of ICANN here, perhaps
too bleak.  None the less your response is wandering off the
topic as well.  Perhaps that habit is a contributing factor
to ICANN's trouble's?  Food for thought at least....

  The BC on the other hand seems to be definitely broken or
at least extremely biased against what and whom it is supposed to
represent and a constituency.  This is not however surprising.
the whole Constituency model for the DNSO is ill conceived
point in fact.  Many stakeholders know this all too well.
The reasons for these problems with the constituency model
for the DNSO have been discussed in some length on this forum
before.  They were not addressed.  They shall continue, if not
worsen.

  Constituencies, in order to work, need to be independent of
ICANN as a corp. sibling or sub organization.  They should be
completely separate from ICANN, self forming, and independent.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:59:56 -0500, Leah Gallegos wrote:
> > How far is this going to go?  Good work, Names Council and BC.  Keep
> > degrading ICANN's legitimacy as a bottom up organization that includes
> > the Internet community.
>
> Hi Leah
>
> Well it really looks to me as if ICANN is completely broken.  The ICANN
> Board is not representative of ICANN membership or its Constitution.  The
> three supporting organisations are quite unbalanced as they are heavily
> weighted against domain names.
>
> The consitituency structure does not balance "supply" and "demand" at all.
> The constituencies themselves are certainly not representative of their own
> constituencies.  The Names Council does its own thing (whatever that is).
>
> And the General Assembly is without a Chair, an Alternate Chair, any special
> purpose mailing lists or even any list monitors.  It is, and always has
> been, denied resources or other forms of meaningful contribution.
>
> I have no idea what is going to happen to the motions that have been
> proposed or even whether we have a DNSO Secretariat.
>
> So what else is new?
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 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: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 20:57:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Well, At Least the Registrars Are Pleased . . . 

Patrick,

Elana Broitman does not speak for all registrars, she speaks for
register.com which seems to think that the meeting went well. you should
know better than to trust what you read.

another factual error in the article, new.net is not a registrar.

- -rick

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> "Registrars attending the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
> Numbers (ICANN) meetings this week came away pleased with the actions taken
> by the often-criticized organization."
>
> http://www.internetnews.com/isp-news/article/0,,8_924821,00.html
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:23:23 +0100
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Business Constituency

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_012F_01C171B5.C40BA000
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The Business Constituency has launched an internal debate to revise its =
charter. To give due respect to the participation of BC members in this =
debate, the Constituency will not be replying to discussion on this =
matter outside of the Constituency at this point.

Philip Sheppard
BC

- ------=_NextPart_000_012F_01C171B5.C40BA000
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The Business Constituency has launched an internal =
debate to=20
revise its charter. To give due respect to the participation of BC =
members in=20
this debate, the Constituency will not be replying to discussion on this =
matter=20
outside of the Constituency at this point.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip Sheppard</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>BC</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_012F_01C171B5.C40BA000--

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 03:02:32 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

- --------------56120B31B171B03A57F4DD2A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

This is simply galling!  A gag order.  A closed society.

And yet we are to accept and respect the input from this star chamber.

The words of GAT, WTO, UN and all BTAs is open and transparent.

If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.

Sincerely,
Eric

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> The Business Constituency has launched an internal debate to revise
> its charter. To give due respect to the participation of BC members in
> this debate, the Constituency will not be replying to discussion on
> this matter outside of the Constituency at this point. Philip
> SheppardBC

- --------------56120B31B171B03A57F4DD2A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
This is simply galling!&nbsp; A gag order.&nbsp; A closed society.
<p>And yet we are to accept and respect the input from this star chamber.
<p>The words of GAT, WTO, UN and all BTAs is open and transparent.
<p>If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
<p>Sincerely,
<br>Eric
<p>Philip Sheppard wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<font size=-1>The Business Constituency
has launched an internal debate to revise its charter. To give due respect
to the participation of BC members in this debate, the Constituency will
not be replying to discussion on this matter outside of the Constituency
at this point.</font> <font size=-1>Philip SheppardBC</font></blockquote>

</body>
</html>

- --------------56120B31B171B03A57F4DD2A--

- --
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, 21 Nov 2001 02:10:16 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:23:23 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> The Business Constituency has launched an internal
> debate to revise its charter. To give due respect to the
> participation of BC members in this debate, the
> Constituency will not be replying to discussion on
> this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.

Hi Philip

Are you confirming that the General Assembly has no
voice in the decision making process of ICANN?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:52:01 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

sounds more to me like he is confirming that the ga has no voice in the
decision making process in the BC

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:23:23 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
>
> > The Business Constituency has launched an internal
> > debate to revise its charter. To give due respect to the
> > participation of BC members in this debate, the
> > Constituency will not be replying to discussion on
> > this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.
>
> Hi Philip
>
> Are you confirming that the General Assembly has no
> voice in the decision making process of ICANN?
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:14:48 -0500
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

Patrick:

You are mixing apples with oranges.  There is no relationship
between internal processes happening inside a constituency with
the issue if GA has voice or not in the decision making process of
ICANN.

Of course freedom of speech exists and anyone can make their opinions
about what is happening internally in the BC if you want, but you cannot
force members of the BC to report internal issues not related with
policy making to the GA or even to the NC, until they arrives to the
part of the process when they have to make any futher consultations, if
any has to be done.

Internal issues, are internal issues, period.

Best Regards
Vany

Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:23:23 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> > The Business Constituency has launched an internal
> > debate to revise its charter. To give due respect to the
> > participation of BC members in this debate, the
> > Constituency will not be replying to discussion on
> > this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.
> 
> Hi Philip
> 
> Are you confirming that the General Assembly has no
> voice in the decision making process of ICANN?
> 
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> --
> 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

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  [email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:18:54 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

Tuesday, Tuesday, November 20, 2001, 2:23:23 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> The Business Constituency has launched an internal debate to revise its charter. To give due respect to the participation of BC members in this debate, the Constituency will not be replying to
> discussion on this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.

Pardon my directness, but how incredibly stupid.

All of this to get rid of two members/potential members who are not
eligible for membership in the other constituencies, but whom you do
not want in your ranks.

The BC is the only constituency for many BUSINESSES who also sell to
other BUSINESSES, such as domain registration resellers, etc, who
would also be excluded under your "Anti-New.net" rule.

I may not like New.net's system much, but this is way out of line.

Shame on you for proposing, shame on the rest of the BC for not
telling you to stuff it, and shame on you for refusing to discuss it.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:37:26 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
To: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>; "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

> sounds more to me like he is confirming that the ga has no voice in the
> decision making process in the BC
> 
> ken stubbs
> 

Since it is all just a Proof-of-Concept test, does it matter ?

RFC-2001-07-01-000 IPv8 Expansion of Proof of Concept TLD Development
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12574.html

The .BIZ Community will move forward.
IPv4 users will have to find out the
hard way what they have. I can not
imagine that the IPv6 Next Generation
Internet .BIZ Registry will allow
people to register their .BIZ names,
unless they can show they are fully
registered on the IPv4 networks.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:38:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

Phillip and all assembly members,

Philip Sheppard wrote:

>   The Business Constituency has launched an internal debate to revise
> its charter. To give due respect to the participation of BC members in
> this debate, the Constituency will not be replying to discussion on
> this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.

  Well it is not much of a debate than is it?  Woops there went the
transparency
aspect of the BC!

>
>
> Philip Sheppard
> BC

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:16:59 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

> Tuesday, Tuesday, November 20, 2001, 2:23:23 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
> > The Business Constituency has launched an internal debate to revise its charter. To give due respect to the participation of BC
members in this debate, the Constituency will not be replying to
> > discussion on this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.
>
> Pardon my directness, but how incredibly stupid.
>
> All of this to get rid of two members/potential members who are not
> eligible for membership in the other constituencies, but whom you do
> not want in your ranks.
>
> The BC is the only constituency for many BUSINESSES who also sell to
> other BUSINESSES, such as domain registration resellers, etc, who
> would also be excluded under your "Anti-New.net" rule.
>
> I may not like New.net's system much, but this is way out of line.
>
> Shame on you for proposing, shame on the rest of the BC for not
> telling you to stuff it, and shame on you for refusing to discuss it.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
>
http://listserver.isocnz.org.nz/pipermail/idno-discuss/2001-November/002017.html
William X Walsh idno-discuss at idno.org
Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:52:48 -0800

"The mailing list will be a place where all discourse is civil and
polite. No personal attacks or slander, no negative sarcastic or
facetious remarks. No name-calling. We're not a completely humorless
bunch here, but simple etiquette is expected."
- -----

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:34:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

Vany and all assembly members,

 Of course Vany is quite right here.  However it looks rather bad
given the recent events already reported concerning the membership
of a ICANN Constituency (BC) practices and policy.  They(BC) seem
therefore to be doing some damage control.  Basically such an
action now taken by the BC will only bring more doubt as to whatever
outcome that may ensue from this action.

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

> Patrick:
>
> You are mixing apples with oranges.  There is no relationship
> between internal processes happening inside a constituency with
> the issue if GA has voice or not in the decision making process of
> ICANN.
>
> Of course freedom of speech exists and anyone can make their opinions
> about what is happening internally in the BC if you want, but you cannot
> force members of the BC to report internal issues not related with
> policy making to the GA or even to the NC, until they arrives to the
> part of the process when they have to make any futher consultations, if
> any has to be done.
>
> Internal issues, are internal issues, period.
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:23:23 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> >
> > > The Business Constituency has launched an internal
> > > debate to revise its charter. To give due respect to the
> > > participation of BC members in this debate, the
> > > Constituency will not be replying to discussion on
> > > this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.
> >
> > Hi Philip
> >
> > Are you confirming that the General Assembly has no
> > voice in the decision making process of ICANN?
> >
> > Regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> Information Technology Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Tel: (507) 317-0169
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> e-mail:  [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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:07:44 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] There are probably no handicapped people in ICANN....right ?

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01454.html
We are going to give a consumer a word document form and ask them to fill it
out.  This means that it will be freeform with no edits being performed.

Then, they are going to fax it to us.

Then, someone is going to have to type their answers into a database to keep
track of them and to statistical modeling.
- ----

Sort of hard for blind people and people with no arms and legs to do...?
There are probably no handicapped people in ICANN....right ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.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, 21 Nov 2001 06:57:44 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] (fwd) [nc-str] Extended terms of reference

GA members will be interested in the expanded terms of reference for
the structure taskforce.

The GA has already made a proposal for a bicameral DNSO which I will
present at the appropriate time.  I'll keep people informed of other
proposals as they come forward.

If any members here have proposals they wish to develop you can see
the time-frame.   I am happy to assist in reviewing drafts etc.  I
will also work with the new Chair (or Danny if he is still outgoing
Chair) to identify how best to identify if we have consensus support
for particular proposals.   

DPF

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:10:23 +0100, "Philip Sheppard"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Further to the meeting we had of those TF members present in LA last week, allow me to propose the following expanded terms of reference. These build on the outline agreed to previously by the TF.
>Philip.
>-------------------------
>Expanded terms of reference for the NC TF on structure
>The terms below provide detail to the outline TOR previously circulated to the task force.
>Name 
>NC task force on Structure 
>Composition 
>one representative from each constituency and one from the GA 
>Members: Chair Philip
>IP Mark Bohannon, BC Marilyn Cade, gTLDs David Johnson, ccTLDs Peter Dengate-Thrush, Registrars Ken Stubbs, Non-Commercials ?, ISP Tony Holmes, GA Dave Farrar
>
>Terms of reference 
>To produce a timely impact assessment on 
>a) the efficacy of ICANN decision making and 
>b) the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO, 
>as a result of the proposals from the at-large study committee, the desire of the ccTLDs to form their own supporting organisation and other related proposals and;
>To produce a recommendation to the Names Council on key re-structuring proposals. 
>
>
>To achieve this the task force should briefly evaluate proposals for re-structuring against the following criteria:
>1. the efficacy of ICANN decision making.
>- the ability of each proposal to generate valid consensus-based policy making 
>- possibility of the Board receiving contradictory advice from its SOs and the impact on resolution mechanisms
>- likely financial and representational robustness of any SO.
>
>2. the efficacy of policy making within the DNSO
>- degree of formal interaction between stakeholders
>- ratio of unique issues of a new SO outside the competence of DNSO versus issues within competence of DNSO
>- effect on the DNSO consensus process.
>
>Timeframe:
>The task force will consider proposals made to the Board by the ALSC or DNSO constituencies  before 31 January 2002.
>
>Agreement on terms of reference - 23 November
>Development of criteria - 30 November
>Data gathering - December/January
>
>Initial report 31 January 2002
>Report ICANN Ghana March 2002

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:52:48 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

on 11/20/01 12:14 PM, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales at [email-masked]
wrote:

> Patrick:
> 
> You are mixing apples with oranges.  There is no relationship
> between internal processes happening inside a constituency with
> the issue if GA has voice or not in the decision making process of
> ICANN.
> 
Vany,

Actually, that cannot possibly be correct in all circumstances. This
internal process of one consituency is specifically intended to
disenfranchise a group of affected stakeholders whom the whole community,
through consensus building procedures, has determined previously to be a
valid part of the process through membership of that Consituency, which is
the reason the community, not its current membership, formed that
consitituency with the Charter under which it currently operates. That
Charter includes representing more views than the select few now enrolled.

It is therefore not only the business of the GA, but also *all*
constituencies within the DNSO, to discuss this issue and for its views to
be given proper consideration and weight *before* a legitimate decision can
be made internally.

Some businesses that are currently eligible, but have been denied for no
good reason up till now, are apparently to be excluded as a matter of
policy, and while the BC so detemines that it is entitled to become more
selective by way of an internal decision, it is certainly a change to a
policy decision that cannot be put into effect without consultation with
that part of the internet community it now seeks to deny participation.

*If* there are other consituencies that can indeed represent those it now
seeks to exclude, then the BC at the very least owes them a courtesy call to
enquire whether they are willing and able to aborb this particular group,
and I would say that they are not.

If for one momemnt, we were to buy into the argument that Constituency
Charter changes are internal procedures (which I do not), then by that
logic, an Individual's Constituency would have self-formed a long time ago
without any need for approval from either the NC or the BoD. Self-formation
works both ways, and cannot be undertaken unilaterally by a consituency,
whatever Philip Shepard says.

Of course we all know this is just another attempt to violate the spirit of
the Bylaws, if not the letter. Dictatorships are fundamentally flawed and
never last forever. This proposed step is the fastest way for the BC to end
up as captain of the DNSO ship without a crew to take them where they want
to go, and everybody else on an alternate root doing the right thing. It's a
shame they feel threatened by the talent surrounding them that can actually
solve the real, rather than imagined problems they face.

Regards,
Joanna 

> Of course freedom of speech exists and anyone can make their opinions
> about what is happening internally in the BC if you want, but you cannot
> force members of the BC to report internal issues not related with
> policy making to the GA or even to the NC, until they arrives to the
> part of the process when they have to make any futher consultations, if
> any has to be done.
> 
> Internal issues, are internal issues, period.
> 
> Best Regards
> Vany
> 
> 
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:23:23 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>> 
>>> The Business Constituency has launched an internal
>>> debate to revise its charter. To give due respect to the
>>> participation of BC members in this debate, the
>>> Constituency will not be replying to discussion on
>>> this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.
>> 
>> Hi Philip
>> 
>> Are you confirming that the General Assembly has no
>> voice in the decision making process of ICANN?
>> 
>> Regards
>> Patrick Corliss
>> 
>> --
>> 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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:08:57 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency

So, the Business Constituency is taking a constitutional?

|> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:23 AM
|> 
|> 
|> The Business Constituency has launched an internal 
|> debate to revise its charter. To give due respect 
|> to the participation of BC members in this debate, 
|> the Constituency will not be replying to discussion 
|> on this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.

I must agree with WXW. This is incredibly stupid. If you want to blow both
of your own feet off, with the nearest 12-guage, all the rest of us can do
is sit around and watch. But, don't you think that it's a bit messy?

It's no secret, what I think about the way the BC is set up. You guys give
businesses a bad name. If anything, y'all should be considering opening
things up, not shutting them down, IMHO. Be that as it may, you don't
deserve your name, it may better be called the "elitist constituency", or
the "country club snob constituency". Better yet, the "snobs with big ideas
and small wallets bunch". A bigger bunch of snobs then it has ever been my
displeasure to know. Y'all have NOTHING to do with business and everything
to do with elitism and self agrandisement, in the name of the internet
world's businesses.

BTW, I do believe that the telcos and ISPs of the world should form a
Telecommunications Constituency, provided that you can find any of them that
still has two dimes to rub together. Then we can have a business
constituency whose only requirement is that the business be a registered
legal business entity. But no, that would be too proletarian for y'all,
wouldn't it?
- --
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 #861
************************