Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #862
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, November 21 2001         Volume 01 : Number 862

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:11:09 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] There are probably no handicapped people in ICANN....rig ht ?

Jim, 

There are pelnty of the diabled in the ICANN. Their disabilities aren't all
visible. Mental disabilities seldom are.

|> From: Jim Fleming [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:08 AM
|> 
|> 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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:10:39 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

At 8:18 AM -0800 20/11/01, William X Walsh wrote:
>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.
>

Surely, there are rules against constituency redefinition?

If they want a constituency with tighter membership rules, shouldn't the BC
constituency stay as it is, and the people wanting the rule change be
forced to construct a NEW constituency and lay a petition on the table for
recognition?

If this ISN'T the case, then could the individual registrants who have no
representation in the DNSO find a constituency to wriggle into then change
it's membership rules?

Maybe there's one that would allow itself to be bought?

Maybe the Registry constituency, who has recognised the lack of registrant
representation could changes its rules to allow registrants to join it?

Maybe the IP constituency will run around buying out all the other
constituencies?

Maybe they already have?

- -- 
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, 21 Nov 2001 05:35:06 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Business Constituency

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:18:54 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

> 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.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:52:48 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:

> It's a shame they feel threatened by the talent surrounding them
> that can actually solve the real, rather than imagined problems they face.

"Modern Western Culture is a combination of a shame culture, based on our
Pagan influence from the Greeks and Romans, and a guilt culture, due largely
to Christianity.  A shame culture is one in which individuals are kept from
transgressing the social order by fear of public disgrace.  On the other
hand, in a guilt culture, one's own moral attitudes and fear of retribution
in the distant future are what enforce the ethical behavior of a member of
that society."

http://bachelor.wabash.edu/issues/107/06/Opinion/shame.asp

"Shaming is the purposeful assault on the soul, that inner spirit which
animates the person.  When shamed, the victim marshals its resources to
protect the soul."

http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/shame.html

"Being shamed in public has long been considered worse than even the loss of
one's life. This shame culture has produced safe streets and loyal employees
in Japan, which has resulted in the reliable products that American
consumers enjoy.

However, the same culture leads CEOs to hide shameful data or cheat the
public without intending to be dishonest.  What's needed is to teach CEOs
that public disclosure can be made compatible with the shame culture, and to
invite them to learn how to do this."

http://www.businessweek.com/2001/01_08/c3720175.htm

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 10:44:38 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: DNSO Constituency issue

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

The following is a forwarded message:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From:    William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
To:      [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
CC:      
Date:    Tuesday, November 20, 2001, 10:41:14 AM
Subject: DNSO Constituency issue
- --====----====----====----====----====----====----====----====----====----===--

The Business Constituency of the DNSO is considering making the
following change to its membership rules:

<quote>

2 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other DNSO 
constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a 
specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to 
represent the interests of businesses using the Internet for electronic 
commerce with customers. To avoid conflicts of interest membership is 
typically limited to those entities (or their representatives) whose 
primary use of the Internet is to conduct their business as users of 
electronic commerce in their dealings with customers or suppliers.

This excludes for-profit entities whose business means they are likely to 
formulate views from the perspective of Internet or Domain Name service 
providers, as well as from other groups whose interests may not be aligned 
with business users.  Such entities may find other constituencies offer 
more appropriate means of representing their members' interests.

</quote>

They are doing this because New.net applied to be a member of the BC,
and they don't want them there, but in doing this, they have also
eliminated almost all of us from being qualified for members, since we
also do not qualify for membership in the "registrar" constituency
since we are registration providers, but not registrars.

They ignore that we, as registration providers, are businesses on the
internet, participating in one of the largest sectors of e-commerce,
the Business to Business sector (aka B2B).

I'm no fan of New.net or the other alt.root'ers whom they are
targetting, but this step is simply not an acceptable response to that
issue.

I encourage RSPs to let the the BC Reps know what you think of this:

"Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Marilyn Cade [email-masked]
Grant Forsyth [email-masked]

the BC website: http://www.bizconst.org/

Their mailing lists: http://www.bizconst.org/mailinglist.htm

Also you may want to CC the [email-masked] list, feel free to CC me also.

Mr Sheppard is also the chair of the DNSO Names Council, the other
members, and their email addresses, are at
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
End of original message

- --
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 10:49:46 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Analyst: Versign will see greater market share losses

http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011120/n20177348_2.html

``We believe that VeriSign's registrar business has lost, albeit small
amounts, of market share following September 30, 2001,'' Munster
wrote. ``With pricing offered by registrar competitors, we have come
to the conclusion that, absent retail price reductions, VeriSign could
continue to see market small share losses in .com, .net and .org
domain names in the near to intermediate terms.''

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --
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 13:20:10 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: .BC ??? Re: [ga] Business Constituency

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency

> So, the Business Constituency is taking a constitutional?
> 

It seems to be a lot easier to have people fairly represented based on their TLD.

The .BIZ constituency is growing.

As for the .BC constituency....???

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
?? .BC
http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=bc&submit=Submit

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 13:37:08 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] There are probably no handicapped people in ICANN....right ?

Jim and all assembly members,

  Good point here Jim.  I wonder if this was even given a thought?
What is also interesting is that this information was not posted
anywhere I can find publicly.  I have to also wonder why that is
as well?

Jim Fleming wrote:

> 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

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 11:55:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: DNSO Constituency issue

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, William X Walsh wrote:

> 2 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other DNSO
> constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a
> specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to
> represent the interests of businesses using the Internet for electronic
> commerce with customers. To avoid conflicts of interest membership is
> typically limited to those entities (or their representatives) whose
> primary use of the Internet is to conduct their business as users of
> electronic commerce in their dealings with customers or suppliers.

> This excludes for-profit entities whose business means they are likely to
> formulate views from the perspective of Internet or Domain Name service
> providers, as well as from other groups whose interests may not be aligned
> with business users.

The really absurd thing about this is that it is a complete non-sequitor.
New.net conducts all of their business electronically, so by the
definition in the first paragraph they would be exactly the sort of
business that the revised constituency would encompass if not for the
second paragraph.

More bad actors playing their parts. Good work guys.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
       Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 07:31:44 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Business Constituency

On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 10:08:57 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Be that as it may, you don't deserve your name,
> it may better be called the "elitist constituency  . . . "

Hi Philip

Can you please tell me what happened to my efforts (see below), back in
April, for my company Quad Quality Addressing Pty Ltd, to join the Business
Constituency?

Wasn't I elitist enough?

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Quad Quality Addressing <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 01:24:01 +1000
Subject: Re: Majordomo results

> Hi There
>
> Any idea why I haven't got a reply from the List Owner after mre than a
> month?  I'd appreciate some feedback, please.
>
> Thank you
> quad.net.au
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 12:17 AM
> Subject: Majordomo results
>
>
> > --
> >
> > >>>> subscribe bcdnso
> > Your request to [email-masked]:
> >
> > subscribe bcdnso "Quad Quality Addressing" <[email-masked]>
> >
> > has been forwarded to the owner of the "bcdnso" list for approval.
> > This could be for any of several reasons:
> >
> >     You might have asked to subscribe to a "closed" list, where all new
> > additions must be approved by the list owner.
> >
> >     You might have asked to subscribe or unsubscribe an address other
than
> > the one that appears in the headers of your mail message.
> >
> > When the list owner approves your request, you will be notified.
> >
> > If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please
> > contact "[email-masked]".
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > [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 15:35:27 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...ICANN's Lynn: No new domains anytime soon..."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html
"...ICANN's Lynn: No new domains anytime soon..."
(IDG) -- At this time last year, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved seven new top-level
domains (TLD) to compete with the original TLDs. But the organization, which follows a Star Trek-like "prime directive" of ensuring
the stability of the Internet's Domain Name System (DNS), has no plans to go beyond that. ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn explained why in an
interview last week with Computerworld's Patrick Thibodeau.

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 00:51:26 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] BC revision

Dear Fellow GA,
Philip Sheppard asked me why I had informed the GA bypassing my colleagues 
of the BC. This is a good question I responded in detail copy to the BC 
Members and I told him that I will report to the GA.

I suppose it will help you understanding better, the same as your comments 
may help Philip understanding better: I do not think anyone is fighting 
anyone: but good and wise coments in here like Roealnd's, Joanna's, WXW's, 
Andy's, Patrick's, Jeff's etc.. may really help Philip.

1. There are enough people IMHO illegitimately denied BC Membership and too 
much control on the BC mailing list for me not to consider that the GA is a 
second BC list. It also happens that top managers of BC Member reads the GA 
to be informed on the BC, not being copied the BC mails by their employee. 
I say them "hello!"  (don't be afraid I will not betray you!).

2. BC has published on the GA that the BC issues I called upon the NC to 
help settling would be addressed internally by the Members. No internal 
debate occured. The new Charter voids parts of them.

3. the new charter plans to revamp the DNSO menbership creating needs for a 
cross-constituency dialog which can only occur at the NC - long time to go 
- - and be preparted at the GA. It should have been to Philip to initiate it 
on the GA.

A key point of interest on the GA is the end of the SME reference and the 
suppression of the SME Committee. This obviously calls for an SME 
Constituency. I will publish a mail on this.

4. But mainly the published calendar is very short and the DNSO public 
review period has necessarily begun.

Vanny has certainly a good point about internal matters to be dealt 
internally with. But this draft is not a draft. It falls in the "draft to 
be urgently agreed as a permanent document due to a long prepared in 
extremis" ICANN document collection.

Philip tells he is surprised that I am surprised because the charter change 
has been extensively annouced. This is true the change of charter has been 
alluded to for a while - no one voted a change however nor discussed it 
until we learn that after a short period for comments a text will be edited 
and affirmated. I suppose that if that text has been long prepared it 
cannot be a draft anymore.

Now my general comment is that BC Members - no more than any Constituency 
Members - dont own the BC constituency (sorry Andy they cannot sell them!). 
But that BC Members - as any other Constituency's Members - have duties 
towards the World's Businesses community they represent and towards the 
Global Internet Community represented in part by the GA.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:42:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC revision

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Well phrased and articulated observations.  I hope that they will
be read carefully and given serious consideration.  Well done here Jefsey!

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Fellow GA,
> Philip Sheppard asked me why I had informed the GA bypassing my colleagues
> of the BC. This is a good question I responded in detail copy to the BC
> Members and I told him that I will report to the GA.
>
> I suppose it will help you understanding better, the same as your comments
> may help Philip understanding better: I do not think anyone is fighting
> anyone: but good and wise coments in here like Roealnd's, Joanna's, WXW's,
> Andy's, Patrick's, Jeff's etc.. may really help Philip.
>
> 1. There are enough people IMHO illegitimately denied BC Membership and too
> much control on the BC mailing list for me not to consider that the GA is a
> second BC list. It also happens that top managers of BC Member reads the GA
> to be informed on the BC, not being copied the BC mails by their employee.
> I say them "hello!"  (don't be afraid I will not betray you!).
>
> 2. BC has published on the GA that the BC issues I called upon the NC to
> help settling would be addressed internally by the Members. No internal
> debate occured. The new Charter voids parts of them.
>
> 3. the new charter plans to revamp the DNSO menbership creating needs for a
> cross-constituency dialog which can only occur at the NC - long time to go
> - and be preparted at the GA. It should have been to Philip to initiate it
> on the GA.
>
> A key point of interest on the GA is the end of the SME reference and the
> suppression of the SME Committee. This obviously calls for an SME
> Constituency. I will publish a mail on this.
>
> 4. But mainly the published calendar is very short and the DNSO public
> review period has necessarily begun.
>
> Vanny has certainly a good point about internal matters to be dealt
> internally with. But this draft is not a draft. It falls in the "draft to
> be urgently agreed as a permanent document due to a long prepared in
> extremis" ICANN document collection.
>
> Philip tells he is surprised that I am surprised because the charter change
> has been extensively annouced. This is true the change of charter has been
> alluded to for a while - no one voted a change however nor discussed it
> until we learn that after a short period for comments a text will be edited
> and affirmated. I suppose that if that text has been long prepared it
> cannot be a draft anymore.
>
> Now my general comment is that BC Members - no more than any Constituency
> Members - dont own the BC constituency (sorry Andy they cannot sell them!).
> But that BC Members - as any other Constituency's Members - have duties
> towards the World's Businesses community they represent and towards the
> Global Internet Community represented in part by the GA.
>
> 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

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 18:51:03 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Constituency

Once we are in a constituency we are sworn to secrecy and loyalty to
that "constituency"?

Once Karl got on the BoD he swore and allegiance to the Corp. and not
his constituency?

Karl because he has no members (or stockholders to which a fiduciary
duty is owed)

Constituencies because of what?

Karl's I get - however legalistic- constituencies no that is BS.

Here is what my best friend Merriam says;

                     1 a : a body of citizens entitled to elect a
representative (as to a
                     legislative or executive position) b : the
residents in an electoral district
                     c : an electoral district
                     2 a : a group or body that patronizes, supports, or
offers
                     representation <creating... a grass-roots
constituency for continuing
                     the project -- Fred Reed> b : the people involved
in or served by an
                     organization (as a business or institution)
<regards its corporate
                     customers as its prime constituency.

Karl I think you may be using a legalism to deny reality!

Certainly the BC is way out of line and there should be a mechanism to
stop them.

Next post.

Sincerely,
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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 19:08:15 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion and request for amendment

I Eric Dierker, being a member of the GA of ICANN, hereby make motion
that the GA agree, reach consensus and evidence by a vote, formal or
otherwise, that the BC (business constituency within the DNSO of ICANN)
is currently acting in direct contravention of the Green Papers the
White Papers, all and amended contracts with the DoC (department of
commerce of the US gov), contracts with primary service providers and
with it's by-laws and Articles of Incorporation's.  The BC is acting in
contradiction to the local (california) incorporation restrictions
against unreasonable discrimination not rationally related to a
legitimate purpose.  The BC is contravening US and California non-profit
organization laws and is intentionally interfering with pre-existing and
perspective contractual relations between ICANN and it's purported
constituencies.

Therefor in order to reduce Corporate Liability and promote accord
within ICANN and satisfy bottoms-up, open and transparent consensus;

Based upon such consensual finding the GA move the BoD of ICANN to
revoke the charter of the BC and remand its seats to the GA until such
time as the BoD determines other appropriate delegation of such BoD
seats such as to the newly to be formed IDNO is appropriate.

Such should be our mandate as true GA members.

So moved by Eric Dierker this above reflected date.

Fair enough?

- --
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 22:05:10 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:08 PM
Subject: [ga] Motion and request for amendment

> I Eric Dierker, being a member of the GA of ICANN, hereby make motion
> that the GA agree, reach consensus and evidence by a vote, formal or
> otherwise, that the BC (business constituency within the DNSO of ICANN)
> is currently acting in direct contravention of the Green Papers the
> White Papers, all and amended contracts with the DoC (department of
> commerce of the US gov).....

In my opinion, you might want to study the long history that lead up
to the founding of ICANN. You stated at the ICANN meeting that you
became an Internet user 18 months ago. That may make it hard to emcompass
the past 7 years of history and the years before 1995, where the small
circle of Jon Postel's cronies systematically controlled the allocation of
basic Internet resources through their combined government and educational
institution network, aided by a small group of corporate supporters who
realized they could make a lot of money, for doing very little, by supporting
that regime. That worked as long as the general public was given the
"mushroom treatment" (i.e. kept in the dark and fed manure).

Here is a sample....
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html
"...ICANN's Lynn: No new domains anytime soon..."
....
Q: If there are no technical impediments to adding top-level domains, would that essentially obligate you to do so?
A: No. We do have other responsibilities in creating a level playing field and a fair place for competition.
- -----------------

It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
or
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

People are now prepared to route around ICANN. Thanks to Microsoft,
all of the technology is in people's hands (via Windows XP) to break
free from the shackles of the Postel regime and to build a larger, more
open, and more free Internet, that all of the world's people can be proud of,
not just the small circle of insiders who have conspired for years to
control the allocation of Internet resources for their own financial gain.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.in-addr.info
3:219 INFO

- --
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 20:33:43 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The "mushroom treatment"....

Funny your reference to the time period spent by myself;

For a man who has obviously not obtained degrees in matters such as
Philosophy and Law with equal time spent studying business and
psychology, who has no marketing education and has no license in
theology you presume much by criticizing my perspective on corporate
constitutional and social matters.  I suggest that my 3,000 hours plus
of studying your internet gives me more than license to invade your
culture.  Especially since a good 100 of it has been spent
researching your posts and the related subject matter.

Please do not mistake my humbleness for anything less than politeness. 
Naperville deserves nothing less, as my mother was born and raised there
I understand their moral standards to be far above your technical ones.

Do not assume to battle me in matters of policy and I will let your
technical matters go as they deserve.

I would never talk to a Newbie this way but you show here why your ilk
is no match for the NC or BS.

Attack the message not the messenger.  It makes you look bad otherwise.

I make this contribution to the entire group you ccd.  Because it is
important that while you all may be higher genius than folks like I, you
have not the genius in the human condition and fall well short of your
mandate to take care of those of us less fortunate.  You have a
responsibility not to act sanctimonious.  You have an obligation to act
on our behalf and that requires consultation with those of us who know
what that behalf is and is not.  How dare any and all of you act without
regard to how and what we need (the user wants and needs), you make
science
an evil art to be endowed strictly to those who control it.

{kind of harsh and a rant but take it easy and consider my quarter toned
down, and thank all of you for your wonderful contributions}

Sincerely,
Eric

Jim Fleming wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Dierker" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:08 PM
> Subject: [ga] Motion and request for amendment
>
> > I Eric Dierker, being a member of the GA of ICANN, hereby make motion
> > that the GA agree, reach consensus and evidence by a vote, formal or
> > otherwise, that the BC (business constituency within the DNSO of ICANN)
> > is currently acting in direct contravention of the Green Papers the
> > White Papers, all and amended contracts with the DoC (department of
> > commerce of the US gov).....
>
> In my opinion, you might want to study the long history that lead up
> to the founding of ICANN. You stated at the ICANN meeting that you
> became an Internet user 18 months ago. That may make it hard to emcompass
> the past 7 years of history and the years before 1995, where the small
> circle of Jon Postel's cronies systematically controlled the allocation of
> basic Internet resources through their combined government and educational
> institution network, aided by a small group of corporate supporters who
> realized they could make a lot of money, for doing very little, by supporting
> that regime. That worked as long as the general public was given the
> "mushroom treatment" (i.e. kept in the dark and fed manure).
>
> Here is a sample....
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/11/20/interview.lynn.idg/index.html
> "...ICANN's Lynn: No new domains anytime soon..."
> ....
> Q: If there are no technical impediments to adding top-level domains, would that essentially obligate you to do so?
> A: No. We do have other responsibilities in creating a level playing field and a fair place for competition.
> -----------------
>
> It all boils down to fairness.
> Which list do you think is more fair ?
> The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> or
> The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
>
> People are now prepared to route around ICANN. Thanks to Microsoft,
> all of the technology is in people's hands (via Windows XP) to break
> free from the shackles of the Postel regime and to build a larger, more
> open, and more free Internet, that all of the world's people can be proud of,
> not just the small circle of insiders who have conspired for years to
> control the allocation of Internet resources for their own financial gain.
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
> http://www.in-addr.info
> 3:219 INFO
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:46:57 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Constituency

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Once we are in a constituency we are sworn to secrecy and loyalty to
> that "constituency"?

  Interesting question.  I would say the answers depends of the terms
of membership of that constituency organization.  First and foremost
everyone is and must be loyal to themselves.  After that I would say
anything else goes depending on the individual.

>
>
> Once Karl got on the BoD he swore and allegiance to the Corp. and not
> his constituency?

  He did?  Where is that documented or available in some written form?

>
>
> Karl because he has no members (or stockholders to which a fiduciary
> duty is owed)
>
> Constituencies because of what?

  A good but very broad question.  It has if you care to review the DNSO
GA and the NCDNHC archives, has been debated at some length.

>
>
> Karl's I get - however legalistic- constituencies no that is BS.
>
> Here is what my best friend Merriam says;

  Marriam who?

>
>
>                      1 a : a body of citizens entitled to elect a
> representative (as to a
>                      legislative or executive position) b : the
> residents in an electoral district
>                      c : an electoral district
>                      2 a : a group or body that patronizes, supports, or
> offers
>                      representation <creating... a grass-roots
> constituency for continuing
>                      the project -- Fred Reed> b : the people involved
> in or served by an
>                      organization (as a business or institution)
> <regards its corporate
>                      customers as its prime constituency.
>
> Karl I think you may be using a legalism to deny reality!

  How so?  Can you possibly be specific?

>
>
> Certainly the BC is way out of line and there should be a mechanism to
> stop them.

  Yes there is.  In fact several.  One direct one is for them to have their
ICANN Constituency accreditation yanked.  That is not likely to happen
however for many obvious and well known reasons.  Another is
to ostracize them.  This can work if the companies that are members
of this constituency (BC) are boycotted.  I know our [INEGroup]
members are considering this measure as I type this.  Our [INEGroup]
members are trying now to get in touch with the ATT BoD of directors
as a first start.  Than ratchet it up from there...

>
>
> Next post.
>
> Sincerely,
> 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #862
************************