Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #886
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, November 28 2001         Volume 01 : Number 886

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:05:05 +0100
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Transfers TF participation

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01C177F4.27320680
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Danny,=20
allow me to answer your direct questions to me re Joanna Lane and =
comment on your economical reply to Caroline Chicoine.

1. Status of GA representation on the TF transfers
In order to get a quick start up, Marilyn Cade as the chair of the TF =
asked that every NC member and the GA chair be put on the TF mail list =
UNTIL each Constituency and the GA selected their nominee.

2. A registrants representative
Joanna Lane asked to represent individual registrants on the TF. Given =
the absence today of an Individuals Constituency in the DNSO and the =
fact an ALSO is a proposal not a body, I have indicated it is premature =
to consider Joanna's request.=20

If it is the collective will of the GA, the TF would welcome Joanna Lane =
as a GA representative.=20
If it is the collective will of the GA, the TF would welcome Danny =
Younger as a GA representative.
If it is the collective will of the GA, the TF would welcome Jeff =
Williams as a GA representative.
(Should the latter be nominated I would recommend an early in person =
meeting).

Philip Sheppard
NC Chair

- ------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01C177F4.27320680
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Danny, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>allow me to answer your direct questions to me re =
Joanna Lane=20
and comment on your economical reply to Caroline Chicoine.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>1. Status of GA representation on the TF=20
transfers</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT size=3D2>In order to get a quick start =
up, Marilyn=20
Cade as the chair of the TF asked that every NC member and the GA chair =
be put=20
on the TF mail list UNTIL each Constituency and the GA selected their=20
nominee.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>2. A registrants =
representative</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Joanna Lane asked to represent individual =
registrants on the=20
TF. Given the absence today of an Individuals Constituency in the DNSO =
and the=20
fact an ALSO is a proposal not a body, I have indicated it is premature =
to=20
consider Joanna's request. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If it is the collective will of the GA, the TF would =
welcome=20
Joanna Lane as a GA representative. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If it is the collective will of the GA, the TF would =
welcome=20
Danny Younger as a GA representative.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If it is the collective will of the GA, the TF would =
welcome=20
<FONT size=3D3><FONT size=3D2>Jeff Williams</FONT> </FONT>as a GA=20
representative.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>(Should the latter be nominated I would =
recommend&nbsp;an=20
early&nbsp;in person meeting).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip Sheppard</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>NC Chair</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_00B3_01C177F4.27320680--

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 10:26:08 +0100
From: "Pascal Bernhard - cube" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Objective of a GA member

Eric,

On 27 Nov 2001, at 19:37, Eric Dierker wrote:

> 1.    Why are you monitoring?

To find potential for co-operations and get an impression on the 
overall opinion about ICANN issus from people who are somehow 
involved.

> 2.    Why do you participate?

To get an answer or an opinion about own strategies and find 
partners. This implies a kind of reserve against personal and political 
discussions.

> 3.    What do you expect of the GA?

To bundle and mirror the opinion of its members. To represent that 
opinion officially. To be usable as a plattform for exchange between 
its members and so get the development of the internet go further.

> 4.    Name your four favorite GA participants.

No personal comment.

> 5.    Name your least favorite GA participants.

No personal comment.

> 6.    Are you in favor of the ALSC proposal?

No. ALSC is ICANN staff driven. The proposal for the building of an At-
Large-community itself is okay. The ALSC proposal doesn't meet a 
real at-large community in my opinion.

> 7.    Do you want an IDNH So?

Yes. IDNH ensures a long term usability of the internet through its 
users.

> 8.     Is staff doing a proper job?
> 
> 9.    Is the BoD doing a proper job?
> 
> 10.    Is the NC doing a proper job?

Criticism is ever a light job. And doing the job is much more difficult 
as not doing it. I have no criteria to judge how staff, BoD or NC are 
doing their job. I just can say which decisions are good to me and 
which not. Since I didn't discuss the issues until now, I have no right 
to criticize, whether in a constructive fashion or not.

Regards,
Pascal
================================
Pascal Bernhard
cube
Geschäfte werden von Menschen gemacht...
[email-masked]
http://cube.de/
http://boroon.de/
FON: +49-6352-753725
FAX: +49-6352-753726
Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:49:28 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council Task Forces

on 11/28/01 3:53 AM, DPF at [email-masked] wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 04:49:54 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> (3)    How is it that you have secured posting rights to the Names Council
>> mailing list?  I thought membership was tightly controlled.   Or is it that
>> all task force members have been given these privileges?
> 
> This was addressed to Joanna but I may be able to assist here.  Unless
> it has changed in the last few days my understanding has been that
> anyone at all can post to NC e-mail list.  In the archives are many
> e-mails from non NC members.
> 
> DPF

David,
Thank you. The only reason this went to the NC list is because Philip
addressed me directly and copied it to the NC list, hence I sent the reply
to all, and it appeared on the NC list, which fits with my understanding of
protocol, that there would be a right of reply.

However, having done exactly the same thing yesterday with my reply to
Marilyn's comments to me, also copied to the council list, this has not
posted, so I am just wondering whether you are correct.

To add to the confusion, this one topic is now being discussed on the
Transfer list at the same time and I notice also that Philip is now copying
his comments to both the NC and the Transfer list, which is odd, because as
far as I'm aware, he is no more a member of the Transfer Task Force than I
am. That aside, Caroline then posted a question about my participation on
the Transfer list, to which I replied to her directly, with a suggestion
that it be passed on to other Task Force members on the list. This also has
not appeared in the archive.

I'm just wondering how much more complicated we can make it for those
involved to keep up with what's going on...:-) In the meantime, in order to
straighten out my side of the story for the GA at least, I'm going to repost
my letters to Marilyn and Caroline to this list after I this.

Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents")

Part I: Introduction, Principles and Definitions
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: Flow Chart
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.)
Part III - Time Line Guide
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:52:20 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: [council] TF Transfers

> From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:25:09 -0400
> To: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>, 'Philip Sheppard'
> <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Danny Younger GA chair <[email-masked]>, "NC (list)"
> <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [council] TF Transfers
> 
> Marilyn,
> I did not ask to be the GA Representative and with the greatest respect, it is
> not the job of the Interim Chair of the Task Force to dictate to the GA whom
> their representative should be.
> 
> Maybe we can solve this problem by your creating an open Working Group instead
> of a closed Task Force, then all interested persons can participate. After
> all, that is what is called for by both NC procedures and the Bylaws in this
> instance.
> 
> In the alternative, it is simply nonsense to argue that the deliberative body
> tasked with considering the needs/views/perspectives of individual registrants
> should not include a representative of that group. Muddying the waters with
> references to diverse responsibilities of other constituency representatives
> does not override the fact that:-
> 
> a) policy recommendations from the DNSO cannot be made without consultation
> with impacted parties
> 
> b) individual registrants are strongly impacted by the policies under
> deliberation
> 
> c) no representative of individual registrants has been appointed to the
> deliberative body to date
> 
> c) a competent and interested person has stepped forward to undertake the task
> 
> d) the Interim Chair of a Task Force is at liberty to appoint any interested
> person as they see fit without reference to anybody else.
> 
> Are you now, in all conscience, denying my right to be on this task force?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Joanna
> 
> 
> 
> The URLs for Best Practices:
> DNSO Citation: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> (Under "Other Information Documents")
> 
> Part I: Introduction, Principles and Definitions
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> Part II: Flow Chart
> 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.)
> Part III - Time Line Guide
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on 11/27/01 9:26 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA at [email-masked] wrote:
> 
>> I would think that having Joanna Lane as the GA representative would appear
>> to be a good approach.  I have read Joanna's lenthy memo regarding
>> representing "registrants".  Of course, the GA will want a  representative
>> who can represent the GA broadly. But, I am not sure why providing the GA
>> representation role should preclude Joanna representing, as part of that, a
>> concern to ensure that individual "registrants" needs/views/perspectives,
>> etc. are reflected, along with other stakeholder views.
>> 
>> I would suggest that the TF will of course discuss input/persperspectives
>> for various stakeholders; including, but not limited to individual
>> registrants.  Joanna's participation, along with participation from other TF
>> members,  can be helpful to ensure that the TF considers how to understand
>> the views of the full range of stakeholders, including individual
>> registrants.  
>> 
>> I understand Joanna's concern that she may be spread "very thin" in taking
>> on GA representation,  but actually, everyone on the TF does have a broad
>> responsibility of diverse representation to their constituency.   I see a
>> lot of variance in several of the constituencies on the transfers issue.
>> 
>> I hope that the GA and hopefully, Joanna, will agree that she can be the GA
>> rep. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 8:12 AM
>> To: Joanna Lane
>> Cc: Danny Younger GA chair; NC (list)
>> Subject: [council] TF Transfers
>> 
>> 
>> Joanna,
>> thank you for your reply. As you may appreciate this request raises issues
>> beyond the transfers task force and hits at the essence of individuals
>> representation within ICANN. In this respect the current ALSC report is
>> relevant and that report among other issues is just starting debate within
>> another NC task force.
>> 
>> It would be premature to agree to a registrants/individuals representation
>> in a NC task force before we can give thought as the NC to the wider issue.
>> 
>> On a practical note I am fully aware of your interest, competence and
>> activity on the GA and believe you would make an excellent GA representative
>> to the transfers TF. The GA has not yet nominated anyone to the task force
>> (The GA chair was put on circulation by the TF chair for information pending
>> a nomination). I would encourage you to seek GA nomination and so be able to
>> participate.
>> 
>> Philip Sheppard
>> NC Chair
> 

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 05:53:14 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: Transfer TF - 2

- ----------
> From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 02:19:12 -0400
> To: "Chicoine, Caroline G." <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Danny Younger <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Transfer TF
> 
> Dear Caroline,
> 
> Since my participation now seems to be a topic on the Transfer list, please
> allow me to make my position quite clear to its members.
> 
> Yesterday, in my response to Philip Shepard, posted to the Council list, I
> provided the basis for a proposal to appoint a registrants representative to
> the TF, in addition to a GA representative.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00427.html. Notwithstanding
> that I am complimented by both Philip's and Marilyn's support of me in that
> capacity, it was never my intention, nor my proposal, to replace the GA
> representative, and that is not the issue here.
> 
> At the heart of the matter is the NC's obligations to include interested
> persons who have expressed a desire to participate, are directly and
> substantially impacted by the policies under review, and who are not
> adequately represented in the process by the current Task Force structure.
> 
> The TF clearly has the ability to appoint whom it likes, hence my request that
> in the exceptional circumstances that it's task relates specifically to issues
> that impact registrants, it simply exercices that option and appoints the most
> competent person available as a representative of that group, (and in
> particular individual registrants), whomsoever that may be.
> 
> Had a separate DNSO constituency for individuals been created, this problem
> would never have arisen, but as things stand, the TF must now find another way
> to reach this impacted group in its day to day deliberations. If it does not
> do so, it is inconceivable that the validity of its final report will stand
> the test of any registrar who does like what it sees, and seeks a way to avoid
> implementation. My concern is that Registrants would then suffer far greater
> hardship than they do now from the ensuing confusion and there would be
> nothing more the DNSO could do to help.
> 
> Clearly, even with a representative on board, outreach and investigations will
> need to be undertaken and I'm sure we all have ideas about that we can
> discuss, but as a practical matter, there needs to be one representative to
> facilitate and act as a centralized source for input, at least for individual
> registrants that are simply not represented by the existing constituencies.
> Also, one can't help wondering how the TF will ever be able to hold a serious
> discussion about anything, or arrive at any conclusions, if there is not a
> single member from that group available to throw some light on a problem.
> 
> In my view, the ALSO has no bearing on this discussion, since policy
> recommendations from DNSO must include outreach to impacted parties and one
> cannot deny that individual registrants are impacted by the policies before
> this task force. 
> 
> With all the above aspects in mind, clearly this argument is not about whether
> my participation should be as a representative of the GA, or as a registrants
> representative at all, it is about this TF not being capable of functioning
> properly unless either:-
> 
> a) it appoints one person as a representative for registrants or
> b) it transforms into a working group with an open mailing list that allows
> direct interaction with registrants.
> 
> Personally, I would consider either of these two alternatives acceptable, but
> am inclined to favor option b) as the best way to go.
> 
> Please forward this to the Task Force list if you think it would be helpful.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Joanna
> 
> 
> 
> The URLs for Best Practices:
> DNSO Citation: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> (Under "Other Information Documents")
> 
> Part I: Introduction, Principles and Definitions
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> Part II: Flow Chart
> 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.)
> Part III - Time Line Guide
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 02:05:06 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus & Names Council Task Forces

|> From: McMeikan, Andrew [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 12:50 AM
|> 
|> Is not a person a legal entity?  After all in the end 
|> someone has to be held to account regardless of how 
|> you wrap it in legalities.

Yes, a person is a legal entity. But, a person is not the organization
that's collecting the money. It's largely a trust issue.

|> for the IC fund, that is 100% controlled by me and any 
|> mismanagement would be blamed on me, so far half of 
|> whats in there is from me the other half is from an 
|> outside donation.  This fund is for individualls 
|> getting a voice and establishment of an individuals 
|> constituency.  Until a 'consensus' of what that is and 
|> what the rules governing its use is then it rests with me.

What assurance do I have that what you just said is going to be the way it
happens?

|> I see know problem in someone setting up an account for the 
|> ga and running it, just declare a position of tresurer, elect 
|> someone who is prepared to take that responsibility and trust.

IANAL, but that might be misconstrued as a fraud. You have no legal right
nor permission to collect funds for the ICANN/DNSO/GA unless you have some
sort of delegation instrument, signed by the ICANN powers-that-be. You would
have, at that point, mis-represented yourself. That's one of the elements of
fraud. You might be making yourself vulnerable to all sorts of liabilities.
Especially if the ICANN disavows you.

|> Even draw up rules on use. Any extra legal fiction of a 
|> 'trust' account or an incorporated body does not stop
|> someone from nicking the loot, might even make it easier, 
|> certainly adds extra cost.

A registered legal entity is a lot easier to find then a free-ranging
individual. Governments make sure of that so that they can collect their
taxes.

|> People who want to spend a fortune establishing complicated 
|> setups to do a simple thing usually do so because they don't 
|> want to be held to account and want a 'system' to blame.  or 
|> to buy a plush leather seat to sit in while writting cheques.

I don't have time or patience to explain to you how wrong you are. If it was
truely that simple, we'd have fixed all these problems a long time ago. In
fact, KISS was IANA's first attempt, then we had the IAHC and it went
downhill from there. Also, before the ICANN, the ORSC existed.

|> My neck is only on the line so far to the point of a couple 
|> of pizzas worth, but the principle still applies 
|> http://www.individual-domain.org or something like it, 
|> is going to need every scrap of money it can get.  If
|> someone asks me for the funds I hold and its use betters 
|> individuals voices, then it gets used, I go with whatever 
|> the consensus is.  The buck stops with me!  

Therein lays the heart of the problem, who determines consensus and would
anyone else, looking at the same evidence, agree? If the answer to the
latter is, or might be, "no" then you have a serious problem. That's why
most democracies run on a voting system, rather then a consensus system.

|> If anyone cares to draw up rules that shold bind its 
|> use and those rules get wide acceptance then those rules 
|> will govern its use.  

|> This all has to be done regardless of if its someones pocket, 
|> personal account or a corporate account.  But someone still 
|> has to stick their neck out and take responsibility.

|> Roland if you have doubts about what it is going to be used 
|> for, then help prepare a 'funds use' document.  Even if you 
|> make a pledge of $x for y-purpose at least people know that 
|> something can be possible because the funds will be there. 
|> http://www.e-gold.com/pub-bal.asp?pubid=313216 shows
|> how much can be in the mail today if someone feels a pizza 
|> is vital to getting the job done ;)

Please understand, I was not questioning you, I was merely pointing out the
problems with the method. The account is actually quite interesting. I am
very much interested in all of the permutations of eCommerce. It's what I
do.

|> I also have more money personally, but since I spend on 
|> things in my life that amount goes up and down, what is 
|> in the IC fund, while under my control is not for my 
|> personal benifit.
|> 
|> Maybe no one will give much until lots of documents and 
|> organisations and elected purse bearers exist, but if 
|> someone does have a couple of bucks to set aside then at 
|> least there is a way to do so.  Perhaps you can do better,
|> certainly with three years of questing over this you must 
|> have some pretty good ideas, maybe even thought about 
|> establishing a trust yourself?  If you have something 
|> better and publicly accept the task, I see no reason not to
|> send it to you (does anyone object?).

I have many ideas. However, none of them are compatible with paying the
rent. I have a business to run too. Some of them are even incompatible with
the current power regime. BTW, please forgive me if I sounded a bit harsh,
for the past few weeks, I've been living inside MS-Excel2K, doing business
models and plans. There is not a lot of forgiveness there.

|> Help me out here, I just want to see some progress.

On that, we are in agreement.

- --
R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company
tel: +1 925 373 3954
cel: +1 925 352 3615
fax: +1 925 373 9781 
http://www.mhsc.com

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 5:15 PM
|> To: 'McMeikan, Andrew'; 'Joop Teernstra'; [email-masked]
|> Cc: [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...
|> 
|> 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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:05:20 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Posting statistics / Hard list moderation needed?

I just did some very simple automated counting on messages sent to 
the GA list between Nov 4 10:00 GMT and Nov 28 10:00 GMT, that is, 
over a 24-day-period.

Here are the top 20 From: headers:

   total  avg/day

    136    5.67    From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> 
     81    3.38    From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]> 
     66    2.75    From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]> 
     44    1.83    From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]> 
     31    1.29    From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]> 
     31    1.29    From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]> 
     30    1.25    From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]> 
     25    1.04    From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]> 
     19    0.79    From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]> 
     19    0.79    From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]> 
     17    0.71    From: [email-masked] 
     16    0.67    From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> 
     14    0.58    From: Joseph <[email-masked]> 
     13    0.54    From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]> 
     11    0.46    From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]> 
     11    0.46    From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee) 
     10    0.42    From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]> 
     10    0.42    From: DPF <[email-masked]> 
      8    0.33    From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]> 
      7    0.29    From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]> 

I'll leave any conclusions to you.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 08:00:46 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers TF participation

Philip,

Allow me to draw your attention to three points of order:-

1)  Marilyn is not the Chair, she is the Interim Chair pending an election
for Chair. 

2)  You are certainly entitled to express your opinion about my request, but
Marilyn is the Interim Chair and therefore, it is her decision to make. I
have not received a definitive answer from her.

3) You are certainly entitled to express your opinion about how the GA
appoints its representatives, but typically, the GA cannot respond to
proposals that do not have a proper basis established.

The basis for your suggestion would need to address the question of how it
is proposed the GA determines its collective will on this occasion, how and
why the suggested procedure would differentiate from the GA's normal
procedures and those used by the other Constituencies, the likely impact on
deliberations of the TTF, (such as delaying consultation with ICANN counsel,
the election of the TF Chair and so on), also details of any cost
implications, such as Secretariat services.

Thank you
Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents")

Part I: Introduction, Principles and Definitions
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: Flow Chart
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.)
Part III - Time Line Guide
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html

on 11/28/01 5:05 AM, Philip Sheppard at [email-masked] wrote:

> Danny, 
> allow me to answer your direct questions to me re Joanna Lane and comment on
> your economical reply to Caroline Chicoine.
> 
> 1. Status of GA representation on the TF transfers
> In order to get a quick start up, Marilyn Cade as the chair of the TF asked
> that every NC member and the GA chair be put on the TF mail list UNTIL each
> Constituency and the GA selected their nominee.
> 
> 2. A registrants representative
> Joanna Lane asked to represent individual registrants on the TF. Given the
> absence today of an Individuals Constituency in the DNSO and the fact an ALSO
> is a proposal not a body, I have indicated it is premature to consider
> Joanna's request.
> 
> If it is the collective will of the GA, the TF would welcome Joanna Lane as a
> GA representative.
> If it is the collective will of the GA, the TF would welcome Danny Younger as
> a GA representative.
> If it is the collective will of the GA, the TF would welcome Jeff Williams as
> a GA representative.
> (Should the latter be nominated I would recommend an early in person meeting).
> 
> Philip Sheppard
> NC Chair
> 

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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 12:04:15 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

Dear Jeff,
I am fed-up both with false consensing  - I agree with Joanna/Roeland's 
analysis and I do not believe that the ICANN can be changed - but I am also 
fed-up with this false democracing which serves as an alibi to ICANNers and 
locks us into the ICANN ill designed structures and ways of thinking.

We need to get real ourselves. Danny's consensus mechanism conforms to the 
bylaws, MoU and mental sanity: we have to enforce it. We are not a 
democracy. We represent no one: we are concerned and experienced in issues 
which makes us acceptable trustees to others to represent that concerns and 
experiences. If these others desagree with us or do not trust us they may 
join. If they are not informed we may help trough outreach. If they do not 
bother this is their problem. SOs are no Parliaments, they are Consulting 
Groups and should be paid or at least supported by their Customer: the BoD.

In the particular case of Joanna, she may have confused the things so I 
will repeat:

- - none of us represent any one. So please et forget about these "who made 
you king?" or "community correct to support in bloc" or "member of the so 
and so community".

- - when a job must be accomplished we need every concerned competence to 
join: this is the only way to make sure that a consensus may be uncovered. 
Any other way demonstrates a childish interest in defending petty 
privildeges resulting from ill designed charters.

- - nominations are a good way to push overloaded people into joining and to 
give them some support  in showing that the person's competence over the 
needs, problems and propositions for a "so and so community" is acknowledged.

- - when missing competences are identified in a TF/WG, finding it is a 
priroity of the TF/WG.

So, I repeat to Philip my support of Joanna as a good choice on individual 
registrants issues and I call for an additional competence (like yours?) 
about bulk registrants issues. That Joanna is or is not happy with this, 
adopted some positions or not, agrees or disagrees with me does not change 
her qualifications. Period.

It will not change either that as a Registrant I happy neither with my 
Registrar future nor with my Registry present. That there are possible ways 
of improvement and that I would prefer to discuss real stuff rather than 
policy - at nomination as well as at TTF management level. Second Period.

Jefsey

On 03:32 28/11/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Jefsey and all assembly members,
>
>   I would have to agree with Jefsey's contention here as well.  Although
>Joanna may wish to be a candidate to represent registrants in some way
>within the DNSO or the DNSO GA, a vote should be taken and a nomination
>period for such a representative to be chosen within the GA.  As the DNSO GA
>has a process for this to occur I would therefore suggest that first the
>nominations be taken for such a position within the GA, and than
>a vote be taken in accordance with that outlined and documented
>process accordingly if such is approved by Danny's proposal in the
>form of a motion.
>
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Dear Phiilp,
> > Patrick Corliss has brough to the attention of the GA the proposition of
> > Danny Younger to call on Joanna Lane as a representative of the registrant
> > community.
> >
> > This proposition has not been discussed in the GA and will obviously
> > creates a debate if you consider Joanna as a "representative of the
> > registrant community". Yet - as one of those who could object to such a
> > proposition - I will support it strongly if we could once for all agree on
> > the concept of representation within the DNSO. I suppose that an agreement
> > on this matter would also help reducing hours and tons of mailing.
> >
> > Joanna has strictly no right whatsoever to represent any community. She
> > recently left the only existing attempt to structure that community. But
> > she has every qualification to well represent the interests, concerns,
> > particular needs and propositions of the individual registrants. As you
> > have yourself no right to represent the Business Community, but absolutely
> > legitimately have every qualification to represent the interest, concerns,
> > etc... of the Business Community.
> >
> > I would thefore strongly recommend that once for all we agree that all of
> > us are no representatives in a democratic way but insuring a trustee
> > representation towards consensus. And that a consensus is not a vote but a
> > no major objection by qualified interests that (if the ICANN processus
> > recently underlined by Danny is respected) a 2/3 vote of a balanced open
> > group may warranty.
> >
> > I would also add that if Joanna is fully qualified, experienced and
> > competent about individual registrants, as myself also a bulk commercial
> > registrant (I manage more than 2000 DNs for several portal chains) there
> > are many issues that individual do not experience that should be
> > represented. These involves matters like:
> >
> > - script management
> > - payment systems and wire transfers
> > - status reports - format, accuracy, legal value
> > - user escrowning
> > - UDRP insurance protection scheme
> > - DN Title
> > - DN usage international notarization
> > - customership evaluation and compensation
> > - legal responsibility of the Registrars/Registries
> > - places of jurisdiction
> > - name server management and bulk updates procedures and delays
> > - emergency support - like the ncdnhc current problem
> > - authentification of the registrant
> > - TLD procedure harmonization
> >
> > I suppose the BC or the ISPC could be a place to find such a representation
> > with competence.
> > Best regards
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > On 17:46 26/11/01, Patrick Corliss said:
> > >On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:12:11 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00423.html
> > >
> > >Joanna,
> > >
> > >Marilyn Cade, chair of the NC task force on transfers, has passed on 
> to me as
> > >NC Chair, a request from Danny Younger for your participation in the task
> > >force as a representative of the registrant community but not as a
> > >representative of the GA.
> > >
> > >Typically, the working practice of task forces is that they comprise 
> one rep
> > >from each Constituency and an optional rep from the GA. They do work 
> to help
> > >formulate a recommendation to the NC.  In this work the TF themselves may
> > >consult experts and interested parties.
> > >
> > >Before taking this further could you let me know the basis for your
> > >qualification as a representative of the registrant community ?  In 
> this it
> > >would be helpful to know the means of outreach to other registrants, 
> how this
> > >is different to the nature of representation in the GA and how this is
> > >differentiated against the opinions currently available to the task 
> force from
> > >its membership.
> > >
> > >Many thanks.
> > >
> > >Philip Sheppard
> > >NC Chair
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #886
************************