Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #880
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, November 27 2001          Volume 01 : Number 880

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

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:06:48 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

Jeff Williams wrote:

> 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.

If the directors did this, they should post what they did, or
otherwise confirm or deny.  The copy you have -- is it in
electronic form for posting? I'm curious to see how far ICANN
is taking its security concerns.

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 15:16:55 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: .aero

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
?:???  AERO

http://root-dns.org/VueDig/VueDig_tld.php?record=NS&tld=aero&submit=Submit

This may help...
http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/

http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/index.html
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html

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

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Edward Hasbrouck" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 2:56 PM
Subject: .aero

> Why the draft .aero agreement deserves full and public
> discussion (response to the ICANN General Counsel's analysis of the
> draft .aero agreement)
>
> ==================================================
>
> Contents:
>
> 1. Errors in the General Counsel's analysis of the draft
> .aero agreement
>
> 2. The scope of .aero in the draft agreement is
> significantly different from the original proposal.
>
> 3. The General Counsel's analysis ignores the 'operate to
> the maximum extent feasible' clause in the bylaws.
>
> 4. The draft .aero agreement involves substantial policy
> issues.
>
> ==================================================
>
> 1. ERRORS IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S ANALYSIS OF THE DRAFT
> .AERO AGREEMENT
>
> On 24 November 2001, ICANN's General Counsel, Mr. Louis
> Touton, posted (and provided to me and to the ICANN Board of
> Directors) his analysis of my criticisms of the draft
> agreement between ICANN and SITA for SITA to sponsor a
> ".aero" global top-level domain.  (My previous comments on
> .aero are at <http://hasbrouck.org/icann>. Mr. Touton's
> analysis is at <http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/aero/
> report-aero-tld-24nov01.htm>.)
>
> There isn't time before the 27 November 2001 deadline for
> action by members of the Board for me to respond to all of
> Mr. Touton's arguments.  Once a member of the Board objects
> to approval of the current draft of the .aero agreement
> without discussion, it can be properly considered, without
> undue haste.
>
> I do, however, want to point out a few of Mr. Touton's most
> important errors that relate to whether the issue deserves a
> public forum and full discussion by the Board:
>
> 2. THE SCOPE OF .AERO IN THE DRAFT AGREEMENT IS
> SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
>
> .aero was proposed as "a Top Level Domain for the *entire*
> Air Transport Community (ATC)... In this ... proposal, the
> definition of ATC is: '*All* companies and organizations for
> which the main activity is related to Air Transport."
> [emphasis added; the proposal was originally for ".air" but
> was selected by ICANN for the alternative ".aero".]
>
> It was clear (at least to those of us in the air transport
> community, but outside the industry, and to those on the
> consumer side of the industry) that throughout the balance
> of the proposal SITA used the terms "industry" and
> "community" as though they were interchangeable.  And there
> was little attention paid by SITA, as an industry
> organization, to how non-industry stakeholders would be
> represented.
>
> But the term "community" as used throughout the proposal
> would have to be interpreted in accordance with the
> inclusive definition cited above, and any policies
> ultimately adopted would have to be consistent with this
> general policy and charter.  So we were entitled to conclude
> that the TLD would include all members of the community, and
> that all such members would be able to participate in
> formulating policies for participation and for governance of
> the TLD.
>
> Mr. Touton lists several sections of the proposal mentioning
> industry groups that would be included in .aero.  But the
> proposal said that "The ATC includes airlines, aerospace
> companies, airport authorities and governmental
> organizations."  The proposal did *not* say, "The ATC
> includes *only*" the listed categories of stakeholders.  The
> lists appeared to be non-exclusive examples.  The
> inclusiveness of the definition of the ATC, as a first
> principle governing the interpretation of the rest of the
> proposal, could not have been more explicit and unambiguous.
>
> The inclusiveness of SITA's proposal, and the pledge that
> all members of the community would be able to participate in
> developing policies for the TLD, was a key reason the
> proposal was accepted.
>
> There were 2 TLD proposals from the airline industry: SITA
> proposed ".air" and ".aero", and IATA proposed ".travel".
> Airlines and travel agencies (among others) would have been
> included in both. IATA is a trade association of airlines;
> SITA is a cooperative owned by airlines.
>
> The major difference between the SITA and IATA proposals was
> the inclusiveness of SITA's proposal. Lack of inclusiveness
> and representativeness of the broader community of
> stakeholders in the relevant sector of activity was the
> major objection to IATA's proposal.  Objections to IATA's
> proposal for .travel for lack of representativeness were
> raised by public comments and by ICANN's evaluation team.
> IATA's lack of representativeness was cited both by ICANN's
> Board and by the Committee of the Board on Reconsideration
> as one of the major grounds for non-selection of IATA's
> proposal for .travel.
>
> If SITA's proposal for .aero had excluded all stakeholders
> except service providers from registration and/or
> participation in the TLD, I and others would have objected
> on the same grounds of lack of representativeness as were
> raised against IATA's proposal for .travel.  And it seems
> likely that the Board would not have approved SITA's
> proposal unless it included a commitment to inclusiveness in
> eligibility for registration and participation.
>
> 3. THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S ANALYSIS IGNORES THE 'OPERATE TO
> THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE' CLAUSE IN THE BYLAWS
>
> Mr. Touton claims that "the openness and transparency
> principles ... apply to ICANN's establishment of policies,
> not the drafting of contracts."  This is wrong.
>
> First, ICANN"s bylaws requires that "The Corporation and its
> subsidiary bodies shall operate" openly and transparently.
> This use of "operate" is much broader than if the bylaws
> said ICANN must "set policy" openly and transparently, or if
> the requirement were limited to actions of the ICANN Board.
>
> Second, Mr. Touton ignores the clause, "to the maximum
> extent feasible" in the transparency section of ICANN's
> bylaws.  The only relevant question is whether a particular
> aspect of openness, transparency, or procedural fairness is
> "feasible", judged according to the "maximum extent" of
> feasibility.  Whether it is inconvenient or detrimental to
> anyone's commercial interest (as Mr. Touton claims) is,
> under the bylaws, irrelevant.
>
> Mr. Touton apparently confuses "drafting" with
> "negotiation"; no reason has been given why it would not be
> feasible to permit observers at negotiating sessions between
> ICANN and prospective TLD sponsors.  If observers such as
> myself had been permitted at SITA-ICANN negotiations, there
> would be no dispute as to whether SITA wanted and intended
> to include additional categories of participants in .aero,
> or whether their exclusion was at the request of SITA or of
> ICANN's staff.
>
> Mr. Touton points out that there are some transparency
> requirements in the draft .aero agreement, and that the
> confidentiality restrictions are limited. These arguments
> are, similarly, irrelevant to the standard set by ICANN's
> bylaws: "the maximum extent feasible" of openness and
> transparency in operation.
>
> Mr Touton also claims that provisions for openness *within*
> the (redefined) .aero TLD community satisfy the requirement
> for openness in general.  But nothing in the transparency
> clause of the bylaws contains, or authorizes, such a
> limitation of the sphere of openness.  Any such limitation
> would be contrary to the "maximum extent feasible" clause.
>
> Even within the (redefined) .aero constituency, however,
> SITA has not fulfilled its commitments to openness,
> transparency, and ensuring fairness.  According to SITA's
> proposal, "SITA is committed to establishing and maintaining
> a high level policy group (the ANPG) to define the best
> manner to ensure that the '.air' TLD is optimized for the
> benefit of the Air Transport Community and the traveling
> public. At the same time, this policy group will ensure that
> this domain is ... accessible to all users within the Air
> Transport Community. This group will be comprised of senior
> representatives of the Air Transport Community and will meet
> regularly." It was through this group that .aero policies --
> such as those embodied in the agreement now before the ICANN
> Board -- were supposed to be developed.
>
> But this commitment in the proposal has disappeared entirely
> from the draft .aero agreement. As a members of the air
> transport media and the .aero consituency, I specifically
> asked ICANN for information about participating in, and/or
> observing meetings of, the ANPG.  But the only answer I got
> from SITA was that information on .aero policies would be
> provided only *after* those policies are adopted.  If an
> "ANPG" or similar policy group has been formed, it has not
> operated openly or transparently, even to people like me
> within the community. And it has not been representative of
> me or other members of the aviation media, the traveling
> public, and other segments of the ATC, as SITA pledged it
> would be.
>
> 4. THE DRAFT .AERO AGREEMENT INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL POLICY
> ISSUES.
>
> Mr. Touton claims that the relevant sections of the .aero
> agreement "do not themselves create any new 'policy';
> instead they are intended to implement in legal language the
> scope of the .aero TLD that was selected by the ICANN
> Board."
>
> Mr Touton refers extensively to the earlier discussions of
> the standard sections of the sponsorship agreement.  But he
> ignores that the relevant sections defining the .aero
> charter, eligibility criteria, delegation of authority, and
> confidentiality restrictions are not part of the standard
> agreement.
>
> As I've discussed above, the "scope" of the .aero TLD has
> changed materially from the proposal selected by the Board.
> There has been no public discussion whatsoever of that
> change, and no opportunity for such discussion until the
> change was revealed with the posting of the relevant
> sections of the draft agreement in recent days.
>
> It is unfortunate that SITA and ICANN's staff chose to
> conduct their negotiating sessions in secret, and not to
> release drafts of the agreement until they considered them
> ready for approval. If they had operated openly, they would
> have learned of objections like mine much sooner.  But I
> brought this to their attention at the first opportunity,
> within 7 days of the posting of each of the relevant
> portions of the draft.
>
> If SITA and ICANN's staff didn't find out sooner that their
> draft was objectionable to many of those who were defined in
> the original .aero proposal as community members and
> stakeholders, that is entirely their own fault. I hope this
> will be a lesson to them for future sponsorship agreement
> negotiations.
>
> It's difficult to take seriously Mr. Touton's claim that
> approval of the first, and admittedly precedent-setting,
> agreement for a sponsored TLD for a specific sector of
> economic activity, is not a policy decision.  I belive there
> is a clear consensus in the Internet community that the
> approval of new TLD's, particularly including the terms and
> conditions for delegating authority over them, is one of
> your most important policy responsibilities. If this isn't a
> policy issue, I don't know what is.
>
> At a minimum, your decision on the draft .aero agreement, as
> currently presented, involves the following substantial
> policy questions:
>
> (A) Will there be TLD's for sectors of activity -- open to
> all participants and stakeholders in those sectors -- or
> will sector-specific TLD's be limited to industry entities,
> to the exclusion of consumers, civil-society, and at-large
> stakeholders in those sectors?
>
> If ICANN is concerned about capture of at-large
> representation by particular interest groups, you should be
> equally concerned about capture of sector-specific TLD's by
> specific interest group within those sectors, such as
> industry.  This danger is most acute in sectors with large
> commercial potential.  .aero is not a domain for a small or
> non- commercial niche: SITA itself says, correctly, that air
> transportation is the largest segment of e-commerce.  As
> such, it is the economic sector where the danger of capture
> of a sector-specific domain by industry or commercial
> interests is greatest, and needs to be guarded against most
> carefully.
>
> (B) Will the requirement of ICANN's bylaws for openness,
> transparency, and procedural fairness -- "to the maximum
> extent feasible" -- be complied with in the delegation of
> authority to sponsors of sTLD's?
>
> As I've pointed out in my recommendations to the ALSC, most
> ICANN decision-making is already delegated.  And this
> question will continue to increase in importance as ICANN
> delegates more and more authority to additional TLD sponsors
> and other subsidiary bodies.
>
> There has been no public forum or discussion by the Board of
> either of these policy questions. The legal validity of any
> action taken without a public forum would be in doubt under
> the bylaws. This would make it difficult for either ICANN or
> SITA to proceed on the basis of such a questioned
> "agreement".  And it this could create a risk of liability
> and expense for both SITA and ICANN. This could easily be
> avoided by holding a public forum and discussion at a future
> ICANN Board meeting, as required by the bylaws.
>
> I supported the SITA proposal for .aero, as it was
> originally made.  I remain willing, and reiterate my offer,
> to work with SITA and ICANN's staff and Board, to the extent
> my personal finances permit, to help revise the draft
> agreement to represent the full diversity of the air
> transport community (as originally defined) and include
> provisions to ensure compliance with ICANN's mandate that
> delegated subsidiary bodies like sTLD sponsors "operate, to
> the maximum extent feasible, in an open and transparent
> manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
> fairness," particularly fairness between the interests of
> service providers, consumers, and the public at large. I
> believe other stakeholders would also join this consensus-
> building process, were an open invitation extended.
>
> These and other issues raised by .aero are unlikely to be
> resolved by 27 November 2001, which is the deadline for
> members of the ICANN Board to request that the draft .aero
> agreement not be approved or signed without a public forum
> and full opportunity for discussion at a future Board
> meeting.  Fundamental policy question are not usually
> resolved, and a consensus does not usually develop in a
> global community, as quickly as the 7-day comment and
> objection period.
>
> Fortunately, the Board doesn't have to make a decision on
> this issue so quickly.  The only issue to be decided right
> now is whether the draft .aero agreement is a "polic[y] ...
> being considered by the Board for adoption that
> substantially affect[s] ... third parties."  If it is, then
> the Board is required by ICANN's bylaws to "hold a public
> forum at which the proposed policy would be discussed",
> concerns such as those I have raised could be addressed, and
> a consensus might emerge.
>
> But in order to comply with that section of the bylaws, and
> to afford the required opportunity for open discussion and
> development of consensus, at least one member of the Board
> must request, on or before 27 November 2001, that the draft
> .aero agreement not be approved without a public forum.
>
> Edward Hasbrouck
> [email-masked]
> http://hasbrouck.org
>
> Passenger air travel and travel e-commerce consumer
> advocate, author, and FAQ-maintainer
>
> Member-at-large of the Air Transport Community and the
> ".aero" gTLD constituency
>
>

- --
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 18:10:35 -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:
>
> > 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.
>
> If the directors did this, they should post what they did, or
> otherwise confirm or deny.

  I believe they sent out a new release.  I do not have the
links however.  I do have that press release.

> The copy you have -- is it in
> electronic form for posting?

  Not really as the prom that is to be used is not in
a good postable form as you most likely know.

> I'm curious to see how far ICANN
> is taking its security concerns.

  Well I think this is now known without doubt.  It is not taking it
very seriously would seem obvious in that the USG had to shut
down the Somalia sites themselves.

>
>
> 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 18:19:24 -0600
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4

The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4
http://netfilter.samba.org

http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/

http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/index.html
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html

Do you use Windows 2000 or Windows XP ?

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: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:06:54 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:56 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
> 
> 
(Text deleted)
> 
> 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?
> 
Personally I would find nothing wrong with that approach; I just think that
it is extremely unlikely to happen.  The choices then are to sit around and
wait and complain that nothing happens or do something that might increase
the chances significantly.  A third alternative is to support the ALSC
recommendations for an At-Large SO that could possibly meet many of the
needs that an individuals' constituency might meet.

Chuck

(Text deleted)
> 
> 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 21:03:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

Chuck and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:56 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: [ga]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
> >
> >
> (Text deleted)
> >
> > 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?
> >
> Personally I would find nothing wrong with that approach; I just think that
> it is extremely unlikely to happen.  The choices then are to sit around and
> wait and complain that nothing happens or do something that might increase
> the chances significantly.  A third alternative is to support the ALSC
> recommendations for an At-Large SO that could possibly meet many of the
> needs that an individuals' constituency might meet.

  The problem with your third alternative is that the ALSC study did not
and still does not meet the polled consensus or the stakeholders
and interested parties.  Ergo Chuck, it cannot meet any of the
needs of the stakeholders adequately as it leaves out the vast
majority or stakeholders in their "Final Report"...

>
>
> Chuck
>
> (Text deleted)
> >
> > 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

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 19:43:04 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

Let me jump in here with just a little more than a me too.

You are so right in your analysis Chuck that it would make any 101 sophist proud.

Everything you advocate makes perfect sense except that it totally squeezes out
Jeff's' people.
It also squeezes out my lower level dotcommoners and it violates;
White Paper,
Green Paper,
Tax documents,
By-Laws,
Articles of incorporation,
All 3 contracts with the DoC,
US common law and Statutory provisions.

And I know this don't mean squat to many corporate dudes and dudettes but it also
violates a lot of
folks word of honor and Postals legacy.

And when you talk consensus and openness I always must throw in your net sol
domain policy list.

Hey you are doing a great job and your company owes you a raise.  It is just that
you are not doing a great job for ICANN and the GA.

Nice try.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Chuck and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:56 AM
> > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > Cc: [ga]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
> > >
> > >
> > (Text deleted)
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > Personally I would find nothing wrong with that approach; I just think that
> > it is extremely unlikely to happen.  The choices then are to sit around and
> > wait and complain that nothing happens or do something that might increase
> > the chances significantly.  A third alternative is to support the ALSC
> > recommendations for an At-Large SO that could possibly meet many of the
> > needs that an individuals' constituency might meet.
>
>   The problem with your third alternative is that the ALSC study did not
> and still does not meet the polled consensus or the stakeholders
> and interested parties.  Ergo Chuck, it cannot meet any of the
> needs of the stakeholders adequately as it leaves out the vast
> majority or stakeholders in their "Final Report"...
>
> >
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > (Text deleted)
> > >
> > > 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
>
> 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

- --
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, 27 Nov 2001 15:10:47 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Virus 'W32/Badtrans-B' found in file

All

Unfortunately I picked up the above named virus.  I believe that it has now
been removed from the system.  My apologies for any inconvenience caused.

I thank those who drew it to my attention.

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, 27 Nov 2001 15:24:29 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Unworthy Mischaracterisation

On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:43:04 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Hey you are doing a great job and your company owes you a raise.  It
> is just that you are not doing a great job for ICANN and the GA.

I note comments similar to the above have been raised by Eric and others on
the GA mailing list.  It is my strong view that whatever the high level
strategy or corporate policy of Verisign has been, Chuck Gomes has always
acted with dignity and integrity both on the list and privately.

Any contrary implication is an unworthy mischaracterisation.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:03:17 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Unworthy Mischaracterisation

Mia Culpa,

You are right and I am wrong on that point.  Sorry Chuck you have never treated
me with anything but respect
and I apologize for insinuating otherwise.  I also think your company is more
inclined to care about consumers than is ICANN.  Because you must.

Sincerely,
Eric

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:43:04 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Hey you are doing a great job and your company owes you a raise.  It
> > is just that you are not doing a great job for ICANN and the GA.
>
> I note comments similar to the above have been raised by Eric and others on
> the GA mailing list.  It is my strong view that whatever the high level
> strategy or corporate policy of Verisign has been, Chuck Gomes has always
> acted with dignity and integrity both on the list and privately.
>
> Any contrary implication is an unworthy mischaracterisation.
>
> 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, 27 Nov 2001 16:27:04 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The "Precondition" Argument for an Individuals Constituency

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:05:28 -0500, Chuck Gomes 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.

Hi Chuck

In his reply to your post, David Farrar made some compelling observations.
His remarks have led others to comment in a way that may get away from your
point.

What you are saying very clearly, and I agree, is that any new constituency
should organise itself first to be reasonably acceptable to the ICANN Board.

Please don't misunderstand, everybody AGREES with you on that and, except for
an odd fringe lunatic somewhere, they always have.  So what's the problem?

(1)    It's a very difficult task in the special case of individuals.
However, many people have put serious effort into the attempt.  Others, like
myself, have either tried to assist or would be prepared to assist if the game
was fair.

(2)    But there's the rub.  The game's not fair.  Asking people to set up a
constituency for individuals when ICANN has no intention of allowing
participative democracy is a dream.  Those with any sense see that quite well.

So the fact that you are going along with what I am calling the "precondition"
argument indicates that you are either (a) being fooled by the FUD or (b) lack
personal integrity.

I have already said that, in my opinion, (b) does not apply.

Eric Dierker made that implication but I think he was just being careless as
usual.  Ross Wm. Rader can be discounted to some extent because he is a rival
registrar (as pointed out by Patrick Greenwell).  Definitely we should all
avoid such comments in relation to issues which are unrelated to the accused
person's core interest.

In other words, I would accept that you or Ross may be perceived to have a
conflict of interest in relation to matter directly relating to your
employer's business activities.  I would not accept that you should
necessarily be so labeled in relation to more general issues like
"contituencies" or "consensus".

Anyway, back to the point.  Could I please advise you to drop what I am
calling the "precondition" argument.  Should you find this too difficult, you
should move on to the next step and assist in building a foundation acceptable
to ICANN.

Otherwise such precondition arguments are seen as mere hurdles being placed in
the way by those who are determined not to implement the requested structure.

Such a view leads to these nasty "integrity" questions !!

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 21:42:21 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

I agree with Jeff's point of view here but I wonder if we cannot reach some
middle ground for consensus.

I am an absolutist when it comes to contractual and promises, but should not
those of us working for the little guy try to find some compromise of consensus
area that works?

When does a side have no right or rite to demand a change toward a better
position?

Answers anyone?

Eric

Jeff William's wrote:

> Chuck and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,
>
> Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:56 AM
> > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > Cc: [ga]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure
> > >
> > >
> > (Text deleted)
> > >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > Personally I would find nothing wrong with that approach; I just think that
> > it is extremely unlikely to happen.  The choices then are to sit around and
> > wait and complain that nothing happens or do something that might increase
> > the chances significantly.  A third alternative is to support the ALSC
> > recommendations for an At-Large SO that could possibly meet many of the
> > needs that an individuals' constituency might meet.
>
>   The problem with your third alternative is that the ALSC study did not
> and still does not meet the polled consensus or the stakeholders
> and interested parties.  Ergo Chuck, it cannot meet any of the
> needs of the stakeholders adequately as it leaves out the vast
> majority or stakeholders in their "Final Report"...
>
> >
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > (Text deleted)
> > >
> > > 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
>
> 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 #880
************************