Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #875
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, November 26 2001          Volume 01 : Number 875

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

Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 12:08:38 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

|> From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 11:44 AM

|> Don't confuse the development of consensus policy with "truth" or
|> "unanimity". What I find intriguing is that what you hold up 
|> as failures of
|> the process, I look to as successes of the process. Context, 
|> condition and
|> perspective all lend to that difference, but regardless, 
|> ICANN is hardly the
|> drastic failure that some might have one believe.

Actually, and as the number if disenfranchised internet entities can atest,
the failure is quite as drastic, if not more so, as is being suggested.

There is lots of claimed consensus, absent any sort of evidence whatsoever.
Even from among those that are included in the power clique. When it comes
from outside of that clique, no one even bothers to ask. In fact, they don't
want to know.

I'm about to come to the conclusion that it is about time to put an end to
the High Schoolish club that we call the ICANN.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 07:23:49 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
|> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 6:56 AM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces
|> 
|> 
|> Patrick Corliss wrote:  "Could you confirm, for example, that there
are seven 
|> task forces and that you are the GA representative on three of them?"
This I 
|> can confirm. 
|> 
|> It was my expectation that GA members that purportedly represented
the 
|> interest of domain name holders would have clamored to join these
particular 
|> task forces, but it appears that these petty parliamentarians instead

|> preferred to devote their time playing king of the hill and engaging
in 
|> relentless sniping and back-stabbing rather than getting any
meaningful work 
|> done on behalf of the registrant community... that left it up to me
to 
|> represent the GA and registrants on these task forces in the absence
of any 
|> articulated interest on the part of these so-called champions of
domain name 
|> owners.
|> 
|> These task forces are invariably long term projects that require 
|> participation at several plenary sessions, participation in 
|> regularly-scheduled teleconferences, and hundreds of hours of work.
They 
|> require a commitment of time, travel and money.  Yet every time that
I 
|> presided over a GA session and looked out into audience, I noted that
the 
|> "active" GA membership was never there.  Yes, they are perfectly
willing to 
|> bitch and complain, but they are rarely prepared to participate to
the same 
|> degree as every other constituency that has chosen to work within the
ICANN 
|> process.   
|> 
|> Why is it that even the NCDNHC (that successfully operates even
without an 
|> acknowledged Charter) always manages to get its members to ICANN
sessions 
|> even though many are at a severe financial disadvantage, while GA
members 
|> from wealthier nations that ostensibly represent the registrant
community 
|> can't even bother to show up?  

<snip>

The NCDNHC as are a lot of the other constituencies, made up of
organisations.  Those organisations have access to substantial funds.
Even in the NCDNHC, a majority of the members have access to funds that
are raised in their communities.  The GA on the other hand is mostly
made up of individuals without the backing of organisations behind them.

The GA is not a constituency either and from concept has a different
perspective to a constituency.

Although I would personally like to attend the f2f meetings, it is not
financially viable for me as an individual and I can not justify even
limited participation in the GA or any other ICANN related activity
beyond an interest in humanity for the most part.  It does not impact on
my main income sources.

Perhaps it would be more profitable to actually find means to increase
participation rather than attack and berate those volunteers who
contribute to the GA?

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch. 

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 15:23:22 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN is more like a Church...

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
> 
> I'm about to come to the conclusion that it is about time to put an end to
> the High Schoolish club that we call the ICANN.
> --

ICANN is more like a Church....some Churches claim to cater to sinners...
...yet...people do not go to the Church to see sinning in action....
...in other words, people would not come to ICANN to see coordination going on...
...instead, people who coordinated (behind the scenes) come to ICANN
to tell everyone that they do not do that....just like sinners flock to Churches
to tell everyone how good they have been...

so...people at ICANN looking for coordination will not find it, and instead
will find a whole bunch of people claiming that they are not coordinating
with anyone....yet, somehow, the Internet grows, as a world-wide coordination
of many people...who rarely have to communicate....because, they know
what the other people will do because there are certains laws of physics,
financials, supply and demand, etc. that govern the true marketplace...

...the marketplace is routing around ICANN...

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 13:21:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > Might it be more productive to listen to what is said rather than who
> > is saying it?
>
> My point was that what was being said was inaccurate and self-serving. Sort
> of speaks to both conditions actually.

One might argue that since Tucows has directly benefited from the actions
of ICANN the same could be said of your comments.

>
> >
> > I can offer countless examples of how the consensus process within ICANN
> is
> > largely a sham and I could hardly be considered a fan of Verisign. For
> > starters: the founding documents of ICANN, the sweeping bylaw changes that
> > have been made, the "clean sheet study" to decide whether or not
> > individuals should be represented within ICANN, the UDRP, the board
> > squatters, the TLD selection process, ICP3, the list goes on and on and
> > on.
>
> Don't confuse the development of consensus policy with "truth" or
> "unanimity". What I find intriguing is that what you hold up as failures of
> the process,

Please. You asked for examples, I provided them. There is no confusion.

> I look to as successes of the process. Context, condition and
> perspective all lend to that difference, but regardless, ICANN is hardly the
> drastic failure that some might have one believe.

For Tucows perhaps.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:24:50 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Consensus development process

on 11/25/01 9:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck at [email-masked] wrote:

> Danny,
> 
> Please show me the consensus development process and then help me understand
> its legitimacy in terms of representation of all stakeholders, in terms of
> documentation of of both proponents and those who disagree, in terms of
> effective outreach, etc.  All I have seen are efforts to skirt around such a
> process.  Working Group D made a good start at identifying what needed to be
> done, but little has been done to follow up on that work.
> 
> Chuck
>

I have resisted this thread up till now because I am in no way claiming that
work on a concrete consensus building mechanism, suitable for an online
general assembly such as the DNSO GA, as undertaken by myself and co-author
Bill Lovell over the last 6 months, namely the Best Practices project, is in
any way "valid" in the sense that it is officially up and running, when
clearly it is not, (indeed the thing is not yet finished), but please....it
is not true to say that nothing has been done since WG-D.

Challenging work such as this takes time, but it *is* going on quietly in
the background, and I would not want you to overlook the fact that the first
draft of Parts I, II, III (and shortly IV) are already published on the DNSO
website in Documents of the GA, at the URLs noted in my signature file.

Comments received when this work was originally released in August were very
encouraging, and he may have forgotten that I specifically referred to Chuck
Gomes for his personal views at that time, and since then, we have been
developing the next stage, nad have accomodated various suggestions from the
community received at that time, all to result in a Version 2, that will be
released shortly. 

This project does not conflict with WG-D or with Danny's list of items
needed for "consensus" as per his post to the NC of October 8th recently
reposted here, indeed it builds upon it, but it has to be said that it
certainly does conflict with any spurious suggestion that consensus can be
defined by a 2/3 vote of the Names Council, or indeed any other method that
does not stand up to even casual scrutiny by a court of law. Since Bill is
an attorney, we have that angle covered.

Most recently, we have been working on a detailed description of the
oversight responsibilities of the Secretariat in seeing the process through,
but have not involved the list in the minutae because not only is it a
flexible system (you can use the parts you need and leave aside other
options), but also, there will be plenty of time later for public comment,
and further revisions can be made after that, as and when necessary.

Ultimately, BP may not be the *only* valid consensus procedure used by the
ICANN community, but it certainly will be *one*, and the first of its kind
to produce a map of the route one actually needs to travel from point A to
point Z.

Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)

 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 11:51 PM
>> To: [email-masked]
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: Consensus development process
>> 
>> 
>> Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development
>> process has ever been
>> put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling at a
>> time when the 
>> Names Council has established a Task Force charged with
>> arriving at a binding
>> consensus policy regarding the issue of transfers.
>> 
>> The last thing that any registrant wants is to have a
>> disgruntled set of
>> registrars challenge a consensus determination on this matter
>> and further 
>> delay efforts at resolution of an ongoing problem.  If Chuck
>> has legitimate 
>> concerns regarding the consensus development process, now
>> would be the time
>> to air those specific concerns so that we can move forward
>> properly and 
>> finally put this issue behind us.
>> 
>> 
> --
> 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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:43:57 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

> One might argue that since Tucows has directly benefited from the actions
> of ICANN the same could be said of your comments.

heh. Nice twist.

Let me get this straight. I request fair and accurate commentary and the
next thing I know I'm the self-serving and inaccurate one in this
discussion. hrm. You might want to consider the difference between being
self-serving and being self-interested. The by-laws touch on one and not the
other.

Try and keep your rhetoric in your back-pocket and stick to the issues.

- -rwr

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 23:59:52 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

At 23:01 24/11/01 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:

>Apart from language barriers, organising users into an effective force
>here is far from a simple problem.
>
>So my take on it is that there's no credible hope of replacing ICANN.
>We'll just have to fix it.
>
>Step one is getting nine openly elected board members seated.

Step two is to fix the DNSO.

Step three is to get funding for the regional councils.

- --Joop

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:09:59 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] People are routing around ICANN, and will be liberated...

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
To: "Chun Eung Hwi" <[email-masked]>; "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>; "Kent Crispin" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Louis Touton"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Current charter...

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
>
>
> > At 03:52 AM 11/26/2001 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
> > >Anyhow, this is very ridiculous for us to talk about name or
> > >numbers in this situation regardless of whether the responsibility of this
> > >problem is ICANN or Verisign.
> >
> > It is ridiculous to maintain a tone of constantly attacking ICANN, yes.
> >
>
> Some people stood up to the Taliban, and now feel liberated...
> http://photos.blogspot.com/
>
> People are routing around ICANN, and will be liberated...
>
>
>
> Jim Fleming
> http://www.IPv8.info
> IPv16....One Better !!
>

- --
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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:10:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

> > One might argue that since Tucows has directly benefited from the actions
> > of ICANN the same could be said of your comments.
>
> heh. Nice twist.
>
> Let me get this straight. I request fair and accurate commentary and the
> next thing I know I'm the self-serving and inaccurate one in this
> discussion. hrm.

No, you immediately started attacking Chuck's opinions based on the company
he works for and *not* the facts. And I was pointing out that the same
could be done to you. Pot. Kettle. Black.

> Try and keep your rhetoric in your back-pocket and stick to the issues.

I believe that is what I was suggesting you do instead of delving into
attacks and conspiracy theories. :-) If you want to attack people based on
the company they work for that's fine as the same can be done to you. I
personally don't see that it's very productive though.

The facts are (in my opinion of course) that Chuck is absolutely right on the
issue of consensus.

This is easily demonstrated in part by the pervasive and continuing lack
of an effective voice for individuals within ICANN. How on earth can one
honestly state or believe that a consensus of the "Internet community" exists
on ANY subject when the bulk of that community isn't afforded equal footing to
express their opinions in the form of concrete representation?

How can an organization honestly state or believe that consensus exists within
their own organization exists on an issue when they don't even bother to ask
for an expression of it?

Did the BoD ask each of the existing constituency if they were ok with
the sweeping bylaw changes, the TLD selection process formulation, the
results of that process, ICP3, the UDRP, the contiuning presence of board
squatters, etc., etc.? The answer in a word: no.

So, you asked for examples of a failure of "consensus" which I provided
previously(and do so again), and rather than address any of these you
sidestepped the issue by stating you preferred to see "the positives".

Now who is engaged in rhetoric again?

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 18:36:04 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Joseph and all assembly members,

Joseph wrote:

> Hi GA,
>         Referring to the case of Unplugging of Somalia's Internet.
>
>         For the record only: I would like to indicate that although I am in support
> of unplugging all terrorists related sites and sites registered by
> terorrists and its related parties, I am concern that the action will become
> a precedence for the future in that, a nation can/will action the same
> against other nations' internet presence due to political differences.

  I agree that such COULD become a problem, but as yet it has not.
So until it does there is little to be concerned.  If states are contributing
or are sponsoring terrorism their Domain Names should be reviewed
and reported to the relevant authorities.  The FBI has a new
site up for reporting such concerns for further investigation.
See: http://www.ifccfbi.gov.  Our directors recently posted
a complaint to them regarding somalia, Iraq, and Lybia.

> Such
> activities will result in that the control of the Internet (which controls a
> part of the future social economy structure) being used as a politcal tool.

  All known forms to one degree or another are used as a political tool
presently in one fashion or another.  The INternet and specifically the DNS
is not exception and will not likely become one.

>
>
> regards,
> - Joseph
> =================
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 18:52:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Revised BC Charter In Breach of ICANN's Bylaws ??

Roeland and all assembly members,

  I am not sure if it is "Jim Crow" or "Gerrymandering" of a sort.
However it certainly is that "Old ICANN Religion"!  >;)

  As a Jew myself I can somewhat understand this particular
religious sort for attitude that the ICANN BoD and particularly
the ICANN staff in one Stuart Lynn has taken and passed on
to the BC insiders.  However such an attitude cannot and will
not stand.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Actually, that's not any better or worse than what they had before. It also,
> doesn't solve the problem. NewNet isn't eligible, for the BC, because they
> might be better served by a registry constitituency, which won't have them
> because they are regligiously incompatible, thus leaving them out even
> though they are a legal organization, in the US, practicing a legal
> activity.
>
> This is basically, practicing illegal discrimination under US charter. Can
> we say "Jim Crow"? Catholics, Blacks, and Jews need not apply because we are
> a WASP church.
>
> ICANN cannot claim to be all-inclusive and they are in violation of the DOC
> MoU.
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 8:13 AM
> |> To: Philip Sheppard
> |> Cc: [ga]
> |> Subject: [ga] Revised BC Charter In Breach of ICANN's Bylaws ??
> |>
> |>
> |> To:    GA Mailing List Members
> |>
> |> Article 4 of the revised BC Charter says, in part:
> |>
> |> "This [i.e. membership] 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."
> |>
> |> Section 3 of ICANN's Bylaws states in part:
> |>
> |> THE CONSTITUENCIES
> |> (a)    "Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall
> |> determine its own
> |> criteria for participation, except that no individual or
> |> entity shall be
> |> excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because
> |> of participation
> |> in another Constituency, and constituencies shall operate to
> |> the maximum
> |> extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with
> |> procedures designed to ensure fairness."
> |>
> |> If you look at the language used in the BC revised Charter,
> |> it specifically
> |> EXCLUDES businesses which are ISPs etc. "who may find other
> |> constituencies
> |> offer more appropriate means of representing their members'
> |> interests".
> |>
> |> That looks like a clear breach of ICANN's bylaws to me.
> |> However, the revised
> |> Article has been very carefully worded to suggest that ISPs
> |> etc. have not
> |> been excluded merely because of PARTICIPATION in another
> |> constituency.
> |>
> |> No, sirree, they have been excluded because they are
> |> ELIGIBLE to participate
> |> in another constituency !!
> |>
> |> Does this "get them off on a technicality"  (as the criminal
> |> lawyers say) ?
> |> I don't think so as that is not fairness to the "maximum
> |> extent possible".
> |>
> |> Best 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

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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 19:24:56 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

Danny and all assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> Patrick Corliss wrote:  "Could you confirm, for example, that there are seven
> task forces and that you are the GA representative on three of them?"  This I
> can confirm.
>
> It was my expectation that GA members that purportedly represented the
> interest of domain name holders would have clamored to join these particular
> task forces, but it appears that these petty parliamentarians instead
> preferred to devote their time playing king of the hill and engaging in
> relentless sniping and back-stabbing rather than getting any meaningful work
> done on behalf of the registrant community... that left it up to me to
> represent the GA and registrants on these task forces in the absence of any
> articulated interest on the part of these so-called champions of domain name
> owners.

  This is not entirely accurate Danny.  I volunteered as did others.
I and they were ignored.  One can only wonder why?  However
your point is still well taken here in that a large number of GA
members seem more interested in promoting themselves, back
biting others, or slurring others rather than getting some work done.
However I have still not heard or seen anywhere what happened
to Roelands Motion passed here by the GA members?  Can you
tell us what happened to that in MdR?  I suspect it was not even
presented...

>
>
> These task forces are invariably long term projects that require
> participation at several plenary sessions, participation in
> regularly-scheduled teleconferences, and hundreds of hours of work.

  Agreed.  As such, how come they are not open for any and all
whom wish to participate and work allowed to do so?

> They
> require a commitment of time, travel and money.  Yet every time that I
> presided over a GA session and looked out into audience, I  noted that the
> "active" GA membership was never there.

  This is because the ML's for those Task forces are closed Danny!
Why is that?

>  Yes, they are perfectly willing to
> bitch and complain, but they are rarely prepared to participate to the same
> degree as every other constituency that has chosen to work within the ICANN
> process.

  Many have tried to work within the ICANN process and are still being
ignored or disallowed to do so.  Why is that Danny?  When if ever,
will that change?

>
>
> Why is it that even the NCDNHC (that successfully operates even without an
> acknowledged Charter) always manages to get its members to ICANN sessions
> even though many are at a severe financial disadvantage, while GA members
> from wealthier nations that ostensibly represent the registrant community
> can't even bother to show up?

  Why should anyone need to go to the F2F ICANN sessions to get things
done?  Is this not the internet after all?

>  In my view, this is because those NCDNHC
> members are dedicated individuals and have made a commitment to the process
> even while knowing that their positions will routinely be voted down in the
> Council.  Because they have demonstrated their resolve through physical
> attendance, their minority views are, at the very least, respected.  When
> they comment on the At-Large Study report, the Board listens...

  Are you saying that physical attendance takes precedence to remote
participation?  I thought the ICANN board ruled on that in '99?
The result I believe was that Remote participation was on
an equal status.

>
>
> By contrast, when the GA speaks, decision-makers pay scant attention because
> the GA has earned absolutely no respect.  It's active membership is almost
> never there to either engage or lobby the members of the Board, nor is it
> there to interact with other constituencies -- it has demonstrated no
> commitment, and it is viewed by many as nothing more than a haven for
> crackpots and malcontents.

  We are here almost every Day Danny! So I am not sure where you
are coming from here... ?????

>  The GA as a collectivity of individuals is not an
> organization, it is nothing more than a discussion list for DNS afficionados
> and future tyrants.

  Than why are you the chair or did you run for chair if you believe this Danny?

>  It will never become more than it currently is because
> individually its members are not prepared to make a commitment to necessary
> involvement -- even those GA members that ran for ICANN Board seats would not
> commit to actually showing up at an ICANN meeting.

  Why should they need or be required to be physically present Danny.
Is this not the Internet I ask again.  Why cannot Internet video conferencing
be available or used for remote participation?

>
>
> If someone in this group wants to step up to the plate and become a Task
> Force member, I will willingly give my seat to that individual.

  Fine I am happy to do so!

>  Perhaps in
> such fashion there might actually be more than one or two people from the GA
> at the next Ghana session... but I doubt it.

  Many I am sure will be participating remotely.

>  It's easy to give lip-service
> to development and discussion of work items, draft document preparation, and
> participation in committees and task forces... it's entirely another matter
> to actually do the work.

  Agreed.

>
>
> In the three years that an individuals constituency has been discussed, has
> anyone even bothered to raise the necessary funds required for participation?

  This was assigned to Eric Dierker and he failed to carry it out.

>
>   Of course not, that would imply responsibility and a true commitment to a
> cause.    Perhaps we should just pretend that the $14,000 annual dues will
> magically appear or be graciously waived by the other constituencies that
> have conscienciously put their money up.

  Where is the account Danny?  How is it to me managed?  Whom
is authorized to manage it?  Whom and how is it decided or determined
who will manage such funds?

>  You can talk about restructuring as
> much as you like but there will never be a self-funded individuals
> constituency in the DNSO because there is no motivated membership, there are
> only those that use the cause of registrants to promote their own
> self-interest.

  The DNS and Domain name holders/owners of course have their
own self interests.  That is the free market system at work.

>
>
> I see no hope for the GA as currently constituted and have to ask, why should
> our Board members even want to have a GA in the restuctured ICANN?

  Because if they don't the problems will be even greater than they are
now.

>  There
> will be an elected At-Large to represent the user interest.  The GA will be
> nothing more than a useless appendage in the DNSO, a structural redundancy
> that will not be needed or desired when the At-Large is established.  If the
> Board Restructuring Task Force recommends the abolition of the GA, this will
> come as no great shock to me.

  I do expect the GA to be done away with as well.  But it would be
a mistake.

>
>
> I will also not be surprised to see all of you attempt to bolt to the
> At-Large the moment that the SO is created.  Not that any of you will
> actually involve yourselves in building the At-Large, organizing its
> structure and raising the necessary revenues, that would be too much too
> ask... instead you will wait until it is handed to you as a finished product
> by the ICANN staff and the ALSC, and then proceed to gripe about it's Charter
> and everything else because bitching is all that most of you are prepared to
> contribute to the process.

  This is an incomplete rant here Danny.

>
>
> It's easy to be a critic of ICANN.

  Yes the ICANN boD and staff make it easy.  Too easy.

>  It's harder to support its mission and to
> work to get things done.

  Yes it is.  And when some of us have done so it is rejected at our
expense by the ICANN BoD and staff.  That is hardly productive.

> Soon you will have a new Chair and Alt. Chair for
> the General Assembly... I offer them my sympathies.
> --
> 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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 17:26:17 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Consensus development process

Dear Chuck et. al.,

"legitimacy in terms of representation of all stakeholders"  Needs to be changed
to all interested stakeholders.

There is absolutely no outreach, to say nothing of effective outreach.

Both of the above are intentionally opposed by the BS and were it otherwise,
verisign would not have its' current agreement.  Strange, but it is a two edged
sword.

Again I must correct you as to working group D in that much has been done to
follow up, there has been a great deal of suppression of implementation.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Danny,
>
> Please show me the consensus development process and then help me understand
> its legitimacy in terms of representation of all stakeholders, in terms of
> documentation of of both proponents and those who disagree, in terms of
> effective outreach, etc.  All I have seen are efforts to skirt around such a
> process.  Working Group D made a good start at identifying what needed to be
> done, but little has been done to follow up on that work.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 11:51 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Consensus development process
> >
> >
> > Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development
> > process has ever been
> > put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling at a
> > time when the
> > Names Council has established a Task Force charged with
> > arriving at a binding
> > consensus policy regarding the issue of transfers.
> >
> > The last thing that any registrant wants is to have a
> > disgruntled set of
> > registrars challenge a consensus determination on this matter
> > and further
> > delay efforts at resolution of an ongoing problem.  If Chuck
> > has legitimate
> > concerns regarding the consensus development process, now
> > would be the time
> > to air those specific concerns so that we can move forward
> > properly and
> > finally put this issue behind us.
> >
> >
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #875
************************