Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #877
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, November 26 2001          Volume 01 : Number 877

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

Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 22:20:08 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] "...Let consumers speak..." ???

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> 
> VeriSign (Actually NSI at the time) negotiated very specific language into
> the agreements to ensure that policy would not arbitrarily be implemented.
> I strongly believe that that is a protection for registries and registrars
> in general, not just VeriSign.  Our position has been consistent over the
> last three years.  We will implement consensus spolicies but if there is not
> consensus, let market forces work.  Let consumers speak through their
> wallets.
> 

It seems that a statement like this is easy to make, when you are sitting
on an annual feed of $6 per name for 30,000,000 consumers. That is
a revenue stream of $180,000,000 for a task that most companies could
likely do for $10,000,000 max. That would seem to indicate that you
have $170,000,000 in profit to live quite nicely, travel to ICANN meetings
at will, and to invest in whatever venture catches your fancy.

Meanwhile, the out-of-touch ICANN Board of Directors, helped
to take $50,000 from about 40 companies last year (some small), and
then proceed to limit them from competing with you, or your counterparts
in other registries. It would be very interesting to hear how you or anyone
thinks that situation is fair. It is sad that the U.S. Government, has no
mechanism for stepping in to end this travesty.

The only people who can change the situation are the companies and
consumers who will have to work together to start over and to
build a Next Generation Internet. Yes, they will have to do that without
the gold-plated servers, or a $10,000,000 per month cash-flow, but
they may have more fun and more of an appreciation for what they
build, and consumers may reward them with modest returns for the
services they provide. Some of those services will help those consumers
to route around what has to be one of the sad chapters in the history
of mankind.

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 12:03:37 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

On 16:14 24/11/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>I don't disagree with any of the arguments about the failure of the
>consensus system within ICANN but I attribute that to the fact that no valid
>consensus development process has ever been put into place.  I also
>recognize that such a task would be very challenging.

Dear Chuck,
I agree with Marc that such an acknowledgment is quite important. What I do 
not understand is that such a task is not challenging to /undertake/. This 
is what I asked for during the BoD camapign: that we go "Estonian" as the 
Estonia started and operates a system at Gov Cabinet level involving citizens.

The one who will undertake it in good faith - or apparent good faith - will 
get the focus and therefore will run the show. Much cheaper and rewarding 
than capturing the @large, Chuck or spending M$ 200 on the DNS. WXW has 
undertaken partly such a task in organizing a GNU project. WG-Review 
provided many concepts. I proposed a basic understanding/model of the 
socio/mechanic background to help understanding what we want to address, 
Joanna and Bill provided a good set of inputs with their Best Practices. 
This is a solid basis to undertake a project.

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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 12:25:59 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

On 05:01 25/11/01, Sandy Harris said:
> >   So I suppose the onely question reamaining is do we try to fix
> > ICANN or do we seek to replace it and start all over again?
>
>Do we have that choice? And who are the "we" in that sentence?
>
>What groups might have the power to dismantle, or otherwise fundamentally
>change ICANN?

Dear Sandy and all,
we all know that the ICANN is only capitalizing on ICP-3 enforcement. The 
BC Charter proposition shows it: authors only really propose as a real 
bound between Members: adoration of the ICP-3.

Why? Because without users' usage of the "single authoritative root server 
system" there is no control of the USG over the Internet. That control is 
the weakness of the Internet, so security calls for many to disanfranchise 
themselves from the USG root.

Is that possible? Theorytically this is obvious. Now we needed a proof of 
concept: New.net has provided it. However New.net is still embarassed with 
the ISP and a dedicated pug-in because New.net is a business operation: 
they only got the money to develop their own tool and the incentive for a 
certain type of operations. Nevertheless everything is here.

So the point is not to dismantle the ICANN or change it or replace it. The 
ICANN corresponds to a certain market need which is going to be obsolete. 
What we only have to do is to support a more realistic, secure and stable 
way to use the Internet and explain it around. This will progressively 
phase out the old concepts ICANN is built upon, or will push the ICANN to 
adapt as there is room for an ICANN service in the real Internet, but not 
for its mission creep.

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: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 23:52:59 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

> I don't think I said that task forces are illegitimate.

The implication was certainly there...."I personally believe that is why
many people currently are trying to take shortcuts with regard to consensus
development (e.g., task forces).  They
are easier and take less effort and it's not too hard to convince some
people that they are legitimate, but in reality they are a far cry from what
the bylaws and contracts between ICANN and registries demand."

> They are simply
> just one small part of the process.  Task forces in and of themselves are
> not enough.  They need to do a lot more than have a discussion and take a
> vote.  They need to reach out to all stakeholders and document the
outreach
> process.  They need to demonstrate that key stakeholders are all
> represented.  They need to document arguments for and against. etc.

Which is precisely as it is written up in the by-laws. It seems though that
this runs contrary to the point that you were trying to make earlier. This
morning, you said that task forces were a short-cut that did not meet the
requirements of the by-laws and contracts - this evening you're simply
saying that the NC needs to ensure that the TF's operate in accordance with
the by-laws. All in all, I'm not sure exactly what you *are* saying.

- -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: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:31:37 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

At 14:55 25/11/01 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

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

For the record www.democracy.org.nz/idno/financial.hm

>   Of course not, that would imply responsibility and a true commitment to a
>cause.

It does.

>  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.

No pay, no play, eh?
This ticket price could be raised from the Markle Foundation that has a 
program of promoting democratic decisionmaking in ICANN in place.
The pump of democracy needs to be primed first. ICANN is well aware of that.

When members see that they are actually being listened to in the new DNSO 
structure, they know that they *are* getting something for a membership 
fee: results.

>  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.

This is unjust to a number of people that I would not hesitate to name by name.

There is all sorts in our constituency.
Motivated members, idealists, participating spectators, observers, lurkers 
, flamers,  government agents, ICANN agents, people who would stand to 
benefit from the demise of ICANN, crackpots, tyrants-in-spe, 
leaders-in-spe, schoolyard bullies, name speculators, name resellers, 
people who have suffered Domain Name hijack attempts and bush-lawyers.

Creating a fair mechanism to give each individual  a fair amount of input 
is not trivial.

<bitterness snipped>

>It's easy to be a critic of ICANN.  It's harder to support its mission and to
>work to get things done.  Soon you will have a new Chair and Alt. Chair for
>the General Assembly... I offer them my sympathies.

Danny, I nominated you for this thankless job. I'm sorry, I thought you 
knew what you were in for.
It's true, for the job of unpaid GA Chair, candidates without Messiah 
complex need not apply.

- --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 23:18:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:  <major snippage>
>
> Let us take this line by line;
>
> >   This is not entirely accurate Danny.  I volunteered as did others.
>
> Of course you tried but when we move forward without official mandate
> whatever the hell that is we get slammed.  And yet the GA does not give
> mandate to anyone thereby remaining a nothingness.

  Not exactly accurate here Eric.  The NC has the authority to do this.
Yet they did not.  The ICANN CEO Stuart Lynn may also mandate
this as well.  But again they did not do so even after being ask
a number of times by several GA members.  In fact the ICANN
Staff/Stuart Lynn did not even answer these requests at all.

>
>
> >
> > I and they were ignored.  One can only wonder why?
>
> I will tell you why big guy,  because members of the GA do not want
> progress.

  I disagree.  They want progress that is meaningful, and responsible
to the GA members.  The ICANN BOD and staff do not want this.
Hence the GA is being left to shrivel up and die.  Yet YOU seem to
still be here.  Why is that if you believe what you are saying here?

>
>
> > 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.
>
> Funny you and Chuck both like to tone it down to untruth.  This is not
> benign but a nasty malignant cancer.

  Oh Name calling now are we?  How productive, eh?  :(  Not only is
this a mischaracterization it is a demonstration of not practicing what
you claim you believe in.  Why is that Eric?

>
>
> >
> > 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...
>
> Good luck but I heard him present it!

  So why is it not documented anywhere?  Now I did here allot
regarding Danny's errant ICANNWORLD.ORG!!  >;)  Kinda
interesting how that worked out isn't it?  Seems that Danny is now
vying for an ICANN staff position and you are seeking an
ICANN BoD seat.  >;)  Nice try again Eric, no cigar!

>
>
> Sincerely,
> ERic

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, 26 Nov 2001 16:44:43 +1100
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

If any individual feels that they wish to contribute or put some money in
'the hat' to be used by an Individuals Constituancy, here is where the hat
is
http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp?pubid=313216

to put your bit in http://two-cents-worth.com/?313216&EG

If your dying to show support and for whatever reason don't use e-gold then
paypal to me at [email-masked] and once cleared I will put it in
(minus paypals cut).

While I don't think that Individuals should have to cough up lots of money
to have a voice, I think that having a slush fund to get that voice heard
better is a good idea.

I think that a similar fund for the GA should exist, but thats better left
to someone else as I have a very strong individualistic bias ;)

	cya,	Andrew...

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:32 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

At 14:55 25/11/01 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

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

For the record www.democracy.org.nz/idno/financial.hm

>   Of course not, that would imply responsibility and a true commitment to
a
>cause.

It does.

>  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.

No pay, no play, eh?
This ticket price could be raised from the Markle Foundation that has a 
program of promoting democratic decisionmaking in ICANN in place.
The pump of democracy needs to be primed first. ICANN is well aware of that.

When members see that they are actually being listened to in the new DNSO 
structure, they know that they *are* getting something for a membership 
fee: results.
<snip>

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.
- --
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 22:45:23 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Jeff Williams wrote:

>   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.

Is there proof that this was actually done by the directors?
(As it happens, I did myself on Somalia and Iraq, but had
not yet got to Libya.)  And what does Chuck Gomes have
to say on this subject, as to what Network Solutions thinks
it's doing? (Sudan and others should follow.)

Bill Lovell

- --
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 01:07:46 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

Andrew and all assembly members,

McMeikan, Andrew wrote:

> If any individual feels that they wish to contribute or put some money in
> 'the hat' to be used by an Individuals Constituancy, here is where the hat
> is
> http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp?pubid=313216

  Yes we all have sent his before.  However it does not have a
ASA number.  The FTC and the US Treasury recommend against
sending money to such accounts as many of them are not
real.

>
>
> to put your bit in http://two-cents-worth.com/?313216&EG
>
> If your dying to show support and for whatever reason don't use e-gold then
> paypal to me at [email-masked] and once cleared I will put it in
> (minus paypals cut).

  Sure, people are just going to rush to send you money for the DNSO!
Not likely!

>
>
> While I don't think that Individuals should have to cough up lots of money
> to have a voice, I think that having a slush fund to get that voice heard
> better is a good idea.

  It is a great idea!  And if there was a legitimate fund/account and the
ICANN BoD and staff would allot those funds to ONLY be used
for DNSO GA activities or initiatives, it would have already been done.
That however is NOT the case as far as any of us know presently.
Hence the dilemma...

>
>
> I think that a similar fund for the GA should exist, but thats better left
> to someone else as I have a very strong individualistic bias ;)

  Exactly!  But as has been pointed out by a number of GA members
such a fund does not exist, and unless or until the NC or the
ICANN BoD and staff authorize such a fund/account, it will
not exist.  Despite many requests for this to be done, only
silence from the ICANN BoD and staff has been the
answer.

>
>
>         cya,    Andrew...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:32 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces
>
> At 14:55 25/11/01 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >In the three years that an individuals constituency has been discussed, has
> >anyone even bothered to raise the necessary funds required for
> participation?
>
> For the record www.democracy.org.nz/idno/financial.hm
>
> >   Of course not, that would imply responsibility and a true commitment to
> a
> >cause.
>
> It does.
>
> >  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.
>
> No pay, no play, eh?
> This ticket price could be raised from the Markle Foundation that has a
> program of promoting democratic decisionmaking in ICANN in place.
> The pump of democracy needs to be primed first. ICANN is well aware of that.
>
> When members see that they are actually being listened to in the new DNSO
> structure, they know that they *are* getting something for a membership
> fee: results.
> <snip>
>
> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only.  It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege.  It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party.  If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender.  Thank you.
> --
> 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, 26 Nov 2001 01:16:03 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Bill and all assembly members,

William S. Lovell wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >   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.
>
> Is there proof that this was actually done by the directors?

  I suppose a FOIA request would render this information
or request.  But I really don't know if it would or not.
I do have a copy of the filing that was sent.

>
> (As it happens, I did myself on Somalia and Iraq, but had
> not yet got to Libya.)  And what does Chuck Gomes have
> to say on this subject, as to what Network Solutions thinks
> it's doing? (Sudan and others should follow.)

  Good!   The more that are filed here, the more likely
some expedited action will be taken.

>
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> --
> 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, 26 Nov 2001 08:56:52 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

On 10:58 23/11/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>Agree. But Patrick is right in starting to look for different parts of an 
>equation that can be used to introduce balances. Do you know a better 
>formula than DN supply/demand?

Absolutely: your are talking of no existing things. There is no more DN 
supply/demand than the is forename supply/demand. There is only the 
provision and the need for a registration service. And the need to pay for 
a root service operation.

Since you are talking about DNSO reality. The French content industry has 
created a Trade association including 90% of all the serious actors. These 
people are as much important to the Internet as "supplier", "developpers" 
and "@large"....

I have a "legal" problem: I start validating 3/4LD DN for real domains. Of 
the form nr.street.address.tld, the real owner being obvioulsy the smart 
building, the operator being the building service operator. Now someone 
wants to register a 2LD for a building but ICANN has not foreseen that... a 
domain cannot have a domain name on the Internet. The name of a domain can 
only be attached to the owner of a domain not to the domain itself. Absurd. 
There is no owner of a Condo and the coowners can change the common domain 
machine operator.

....

- --
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 08:57:25 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Vint, Mike, Joe, Louis, Lynn: what are you proud of? Must be something.

On 20:11 23/11/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>|> Question is "what did the ICANN achieve that you are proud
>|> of because it is/was useful to the Internet and/or to the world"?
>
>The answer is: Not a damned thing!

Dear Roeland, may be could we not fear them :-) I am truly interested.

>|> May be I missed something? After all they know better. They
>|> also have their own perspectives.
>
>I disagree that they know better and their perspectives have proven to be
>toxic.

I meant they know better than me about what /they/ are proud of having 
achieved. None of them is truly elected/selected and has a duty to report 
on their achievements. So the only way we have to know if they are serious 
about what they do is to ask them about it. They know better what they face 
so up to them to tell us (may be they spend their days protecting us from 
USG, who knows).

Let give them a fair chance to tell us. Not to defend, argue, etc.. just to 
tell us. They probably are proud of what they do, otherwise they would have 
left. Let genuinely listen.

Obviously if they fail to respond after a while, we would then deduce from 
their silence.
Is that not a fair proposition?
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: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 01:15:21 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

This might even work if;
1 There was a legal entity to trak this to
2 The bank (preferably trust) account was tracable to this legal entity
3 we could review the bylaws of this legal entity

Otherwise, it's someone's personal account for all we know. How do we know
that the mony's getting to where we think it's going, for the uses intended?

For three years I've asked this question from every nacent organization. I
made an issue of it with the IDNO and I've recently mentioned it to the TLDA
(the TLDA has such account). The TLDA is much more likely to get my
financial support than some unknown account that isn't tracable to an
organization, that guarantees use of funds.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: McMeikan, Andrew [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 9:45 PM
|> To: 'Joop Teernstra'; [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces
|> 
|> 
|> If any individual feels that they wish to contribute or put 
|> some money in
|> 'the hat' to be used by an Individuals Constituancy, here is 
|> where the hat
|> is
|> http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp?pubid=313216
|> 
|> to put your bit in http://two-cents-worth.com/?313216&EG
|> 
|> If your dying to show support and for whatever reason don't 
|> use e-gold then
|> paypal to me at [email-masked] and once cleared I will 
|> put it in
|> (minus paypals cut).
|> 
|> While I don't think that Individuals should have to cough up 
|> lots of money
|> to have a voice, I think that having a slush fund to get 
|> that voice heard
|> better is a good idea.
|> 
|> I think that a similar fund for the GA should exist, but 
|> thats better left
|> to someone else as I have a very strong individualistic bias ;)
|> 
|> 	cya,	Andrew...
|> 
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:32 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces
|> 
|> 
|> At 14:55 25/11/01 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
|> 
|> >In the three years that an individuals constituency has 
|> been discussed, has
|> >anyone even bothered to raise the necessary funds required for
|> participation?
|> 
|> For the record www.democracy.org.nz/idno/financial.hm
|> 
|> >   Of course not, that would imply responsibility and a 
|> true commitment to
|> a
|> >cause.
|> 
|> It does.
- --
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 22:55:46 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:05:28 -0500, "Gomes, Chuck"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>As I have communicated before, in person in GA meetings and on this list, I
>believe that a new constituency should organize itself and demonstrate
>strong representativeness of the community involved and then submit its
>proposal for recognition.  Just because the idea of an individuals
>constituency makes sense to many of us, that is not enough to approve it.
>If I was a board member I would want to see evidence of an organization that
>is functioning or at least ready to function and one that can show that it
>represents a reasonable sample of the population it claims to represent.  In
>my opinion that has never happened.

This sounds reasonable but in practice this sets barriers that were
not demanded of any of the existing constituencies.  What % of ISPs
take part in the ISP constituency - I would say 0.1%.

What % of businesses take part in business constituency - I'd say
0.0001%.  

Add onto that the huge resource limitations any individual's
constituency will have compared to businesses and organisations and
the playing field is not merely uneven - it is titled at around 89.9
degrees.

What is wrong with doing what basically happened to the other seven
constituencies.  Approve the concept in principle and then you will
find members and structure will come easily.  Also one could assert
that as a constituency can change its charter at will from that
initially approved why worry about what is there at the moment of
application as it could change the next day?

>I personally think that a legitimate proposal that is backed up by a solid
>organizational structure and clear evidence of fairly broad representation
>from the involved community would be hard to deny even by those who may
>philosophically oppose such a constituency.

I agree and would like to see this happen.  However it is pretty hard
to motivate individuals to spend the hundreds of hours needed and to
donate the thousands of dollars also needed on something which doesn't
even have any helpful encouragement from ICANN - just more barriers.

What is wrong with recognising what we all know that there is a huge
gaping hole in the non representation of individuals in the DNSO,
approve a constituency in principle and set some minimum benchmarks in
terms of membership, representativeness and funding it has to achieve.
You do that and I'll happily spend hundreds of hours and a fair amount
of my own money making such a constituency happen, as will many
others.

>As I understand the bylaws, a proposal from the board is allowable, but it
>certainly does not seem to be forthcoming.  So sitting around waiting for
>this seems futile.  It seems smarter to self-organize.  I say that
>understanding the enormity of the task which brings me to the ALSC
>recommendations.  The users SO may be the most realistic way of
>accomplishing the objectives related to an individuals constituency.

Only if the DNSO is removed of its responsibility for domain name
issues.  Also with all due respect the suggested ALSO is guaranteed to
be dominated by business and trademark interests due to the funding it
would need to be even partially effective.

>I like the concept of a Users SO, a Producers SO and a Developers SO like
>the ALSC proposed, although I have not particularly fond of the name
>"developers" as applied to the ASO and PSO.

The divide between producers and developers seems to me to be entirely
artificial and simply a way of justifying reducing at large numbers
from 50% to 33%.

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 02:52:42 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

|> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 1:56 AM
|> 
|> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:05:28 -0500, "Gomes, Chuck"
|> <[email-masked]> wrote:
|> 
|> >As I have communicated before, in person in GA meetings and 
|> on this list, I
|> >believe that a new constituency should organize itself and 
|> demonstrate
|> >strong representativeness of the community involved and 
|> then submit its
|> >proposal for recognition.  Just because the idea of an individuals
|> >constituency makes sense to many of us, that is not enough 
|> to approve it.

|> This sounds reasonable but in practice this sets barriers that were
|> not demanded of any of the existing constituencies.  What % of ISPs
|> take part in the ISP constituency - I would say 0.1%.

It only sounds reasonable on the surface. None of the existing
constituencies had to meet these requirements. Let's apply these criteria to
the existing constituencies and see how well they fare.

|> What % of businesses take part in business constituency - I'd say
|> 0.0001%.  

That's probably a high estimnate.

|> Add onto that the huge resource limitations any individual's
|> constituency will have compared to businesses and organisations and
|> the playing field is not merely uneven - it is titled at around 89.9
|> degrees.

I disagree. IMHO, the existing constituencies couldn't meet these standards,
even today, after they've existed for the past few years. How many of them
even have a bank account and budget (2, maybe)? Also, don't forget the
revenue requirements.

|> What is wrong with doing what basically happened to the other seven
|> constituencies.  Approve the concept in principle and then you will
|> find members and structure will come easily.  Also one could assert
|> that as a constituency can change its charter at will from that
|> initially approved why worry about what is there at the moment of
|> application as it could change the next day?

As a practical matter, I don't think this'll fly either. No matter what fiat
is employed, one cannot call a declaration a consensus. Also, you're simply
not going to get donations when ICANN BoD gets the money and electively
doles it out, after paying its own expnses first. And then there's the GA
problem, who's going to put money into a group that doesn't even have a
vote, let alone one that is recognised?

|> >I personally think that a legitimate proposal that is 
|> backed up by a solid
|> >organizational structure and clear evidence of fairly broad 
|> representation
|> >from the involved community would be hard to deny even by 
|> those who may
|> >philosophically oppose such a constituency.
|> 
|> I agree and would like to see this happen.  However it is pretty hard
|> to motivate individuals to spend the hundreds of hours needed and to
|> donate the thousands of dollars also needed on something 
|> which doesn't
|> even have any helpful encouragement from ICANN - just more barriers.

Actually, all we have to date is active discouragement. The money and effort
is guaranteed to be flushed down the particular rat-hole. There is only the
hope that the ICANN BoD will relent and the track-record supports an
expectation that nothing will be done.

|> What is wrong with recognising what we all know that there is a huge
|> gaping hole in the non representation of individuals in the DNSO,
|> approve a constituency in principle and set some minimum 
|> benchmarks in
|> terms of membership, representativeness and funding it has 
|> to achieve.
|> You do that and I'll happily spend hundreds of hours and a 
|> fair amount
|> of my own money making such a constituency happen, as will many
|> others.

Actually, many of us already have.

|> >As I understand the bylaws, a proposal from the board is 
|> allowable, but it
|> >certainly does not seem to be forthcoming.  So sitting 
|> around waiting for
|> >this seems futile.  It seems smarter to self-organize.  I say that
|> >understanding the enormity of the task which brings me to the ALSC
|> >recommendations.  The users SO may be the most realistic way of
|> >accomplishing the objectives related to an individuals constituency.

|> >I like the concept of a Users SO, a Producers SO and a 
|> Developers SO like
|> >the ALSC proposed, although I have not particularly fond of the name
|> >"developers" as applied to the ASO and PSO.

Such a plan has no more validity than the existing plan. Any bets as to
which existing personnel become the new gatekeepers? Under this taxonomy,
there are no available pure populations, as I stated before. Also, I don't
understand the developers SO. Developers of networks are not developers of
systems, most of the time. I don't see too many IT shops developing device
drivers for NICs, or protocol stacks. Yet, they develop software. If that is
not what was meant by Developers SO, then I have just made my point.

Following KISS, the existing SO configuration seems reasonable.The current
structure, at least, has the advantage of being a little less ambiguous then
what is proposed. It is the structure of each SO that is a problem, as well
as the SO funding model. The only thing I would add is a Users SO (ALSO).
However, that doesn't have any effect if the general SO funding model
remains broken.

As far as the DNSO is concerned, the imposed structure is bankrupt, in many
more ways than one.
- --
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 #877
************************