Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #888
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, November 29 2001         Volume 01 : Number 888

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:02:30 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council Task Forces

David and all assembly members,

  Not David not everyone can post to [email-masked].  I can't for instance.
So one has to wonder whom can and whom cannot.  Which I believe
was the gist of Patricks questions...  More selective censorship perhaps?

DPF 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
> --
> [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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:06:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers TF participation

Phillip and all assembly members,

  Thank you Phillip for you note here.  Very helpful.  >:)

Philip Sheppard 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
>
>

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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:20:17 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Posting statistics / Hard list moderation needed?

Thomas and all assembly members,

  Nope not needed.  There is not all that much over posting to
justify such a contention IMHO...

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> 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

- --
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:58:36 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Transfers TF participation

William, I had asked Danny to appoint a rep, if he wasn't the rep
himself...... and once Joanna volunteered, had hoped that Danny would
appoint Joanna and we could get on with things. 

I  would welcome a solution. Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 11:29 AM
To: Joanna Lane
Cc: Philip Sheppard; Danny Younger GA chair; [email-masked]; NC
(list); GA List
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Transfers TF participation

What the hell is the problem here?

Danny was willing to appoint a GA rep to this task force before (me)
so why can't he simply appoint Joanna to be the rep now and end this
silliness?

Philip: shame on you, as NC Chair you should be embracing any
opportunity to broaden the participation in these task forces, how
else can you possibly claim that a "community" consensus ever arose
from them?

Wednesday, Wednesday, November 28, 2001, 4:00:46 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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

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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
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 17:03:07 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Watch Dog Committee:  Request New Members

At 09:16 PM 11/28/2001 +1300, DPF wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:22:09 -0600, [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
>wrote:
>
> >We request the Watch Dog Committee for DNSO General Assembly (GA) Elections
> >be updated with members of the GA who are not employed by or otherwise
> >participating in DNSO/ICANN activities.
>
>Can you post who the current members are so we can suggest additional
>ones to complement them.
>
>DPF
>--
>[email-masked]
>ICQ 29964527
>--

Information below was taken from the message received with the following 
header:

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 08:59:43 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [announce] GA election to designate its representative to the NC 
UDRP TF
Sender: [email-masked]

<snip>

V. A Watchdog Committee has been formed to police the nomination process
      to help detect and cure any instances of fraudulent activity in
      connection with the nomination process.

      Any instances of fraudulent nominations should be reported to this
      committee at the following email address: [email-masked], with a
      copy to the Names Council at [email-masked], This committee and the
      Names Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any
      such reported activity.

      Watchdog Committee list archive in
      http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/

      The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2001 election are:
         o Roberto Gaetano (request for removal received on 3rd July 2001)
         o Harald Alvestrand
         o Kent Crispin (request for removal received on 2nd July 2001)
         o Dany Vandromme
         o Alexander Svensson
         o Izumi Aizu

<snip>

:)

~k

- --
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 23:14:24 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

On 01:11 24/11/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>This is where the original idea of a healthy At Large membership of 
>several hundred thousand comes in.

There is no way of getting that without a huge pount of money and constant 
efforts. Only Regitry, Registrars and Reseller can give it a try to "buy" 
the ICANN. In that case the 6 Directors instead of  9 "purchased" by gTLD 
is that last hope for a non total business/NSI capture.

- --
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 23:15:35 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

On 01:26 24/11/01, Joop Teernstra said:
>In the meantime, we will have to judge what they say on the merits of the 
>arguments only

In any case it should be the criteria.
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:32:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Very constructive and informative post/response here Jefsey!
Well done!   I have some supporting and additional comments.
(See below your comments/observations)

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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.

  I must agree for the most part here with this analysis Jefsey.  I believe that
Roeland is right and why we passed his motion just before MdR.

>
>
> 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.

  No we are not a democracy, but we live in a democratic state(s) for
the most part and those principals as incorporated in the White Paper
and the MoU should be upheld.  Presently they are not and have not been.

> We represent no one: we are concerned and experienced in issues
> which makes us acceptable trustees to others to represent that concerns and
> experiences.

  I am not sure whom you mean by we here?  If you are talking about
the DNSO GA than of course you are quite right.  We (The GA) do
only represent a segment of the DNSO interested parties all be that
representation, fairly broad in scope and areas of interests.

> If these others desagree with us or do not trust us they may
> join. If they are not informed we may help trough outreach.

  Two very good and important points here.  The problems with
"Joining" has been and still remains the blocking of interested
parties or stakeholders in Joining.  Outreach has been poor
as a result as there is little interest in doing outreach when
interested parties or stakeholders are specifically blocked
from joining.  A vicious circle.

> If they do not
> bother this is their problem.

  The problem here is Jefsey, that many have bothered and been rebuffed
and/or completely denied participation.  This is as you know, well
documented.

> SOs are no Parliaments, they are Consulting
> Groups and should be paid or at least supported by their Customer: the BoD.

  Also very much agreed here as well.  But as you also know the ICANN
BoD has refused for various reasons to provide the funding for the DNSO
GA.  Hence an half hearted effort for the DNSO GA to gather it's
own funding.  I hope that this effort will be renewed with the ICANN
BOD's and NC's approval and strong support.

>
>
> 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".

  Well I DO represent our [INEGroup] members, stakeholders all.  I cannot
speak of course for Joanna or yourself.  But we [INEGroup] do not represent
the whole of the DNSO as an SO of ICANN.  However we do have a
significant number of members.

>
>
> - 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.

  Agreed.  Hence my harping on allowing any and all interested parties
or otherwise stakeholders to join the DNSO GA, the At-Large, and
any other constituency group within the ICANN skewed structure.
However again, this has been specifically blocked as you know from
several constituencies, and in particular the DNSO GA.  Now it seems
that the ALSC will be attempting to also block stakeholders/users
from the At-Large as well.

>
> Any other way demonstrates a childish interest in defending petty
> privildeges resulting from ill designed charters.

  Yes this seems to be the problem of late with the BC and the NCC
as we [INEGroup] warned of in the early stages of the formation of
the DNSO and it's constituency groups.

>
>
> - 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.

  Also agreed.  And a fairly good process is available in the DNSO GA.
It must be used, and enforced as I tried to inform Eric, and to a much
lesser extent Joanna over the past two-three days.

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

  Finding it is indeed important.  Encouraging already existing GA
members to participate more and allowing them to participate
openly, and freely in these TF/WG's is of paramount importance.
Again however in the recent past this is not and has not been the
case.  It would appear from the posts to the [email-masked]
of late that an attempt to keep these TF/WG's limited to
"Certain" GA members is afoot.  That is not doing good
outreach, nor is it a step in the direction of open participation
as a result.

>
>
> 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.

  I don't believe that Joanna has the breadth of background and knowledge
to be such a representative.  This however does not in any way preclude
her from adding other competence to the GA.  And this is why we have
a nomination process structure in the DNSO GA and why I also
suggested using it to assure that we get the representative if need be,
for this "Registrant Representative".   None the less however each
registrant signs a registrant agreement.  That is a legal contract.
As such he/she is their own registrant representative for the Domain
Names in the Name Space to which those domain names are registered.
They and they alone are responsible under the current ICANN
registrant agreements/contracts.  So therefore I have serious doubts
that any one person can adequately represent that many registrants.

>
>
> 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

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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 18:04:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfers TF participation

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  If you have been following along, I offered a solution.  It was essentially,
let the DNSO GA and/or any other willing constituency, put it to
a vote on the DNSO GA using the current GA election process after
nominations have been made.  Perhaps you missed that post Marilyn?

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> William, I had asked Danny to appoint a rep, if he wasn't the rep
> himself...... and once Joanna volunteered, had hoped that Danny would
> appoint Joanna and we could get on with things.
>
> I  would welcome a solution. Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 11:29 AM
> To: Joanna Lane
> Cc: Philip Sheppard; Danny Younger GA chair; [email-masked]; NC
> (list); GA List
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Transfers TF participation
>
> What the hell is the problem here?
>
> Danny was willing to appoint a GA rep to this task force before (me)
> so why can't he simply appoint Joanna to be the rep now and end this
> silliness?
>
> Philip: shame on you, as NC Chair you should be embracing any
> opportunity to broaden the participation in these task forces, how
> else can you possibly claim that a "community" consensus ever arose
> from them?
>
> Wednesday, Wednesday, November 28, 2001, 4:00:46 AM, Joanna Lane wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Webcertificates.info
> SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> 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: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:50:46 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Blocking and Consensus speak

I take the following snippet too discuss to very important issues.

Blocking;  Apparently this is well documented.  I have every page of ICANN archives
bookmark and have enjoyed reading back to 1998, yes I am nuts but wait till you read
your charactar in "the ICANN Conspiracy".
And I want a chapter on discrimination and blocking but I can not find any such
reference in the GA.  (oh don't worry I have plenty for the constituencies.  Also
funny anecdotes regarding attending ICANN meetings and being snubbed because you
weren't somebody. But could someone give me a reference to blocking in the GA?)

Consensus Speak;
1.    It is rude to make references and claim matters that should be known by all but
not reference them for the sake of other listeners that do not know, in otherwords
don't talk like you are long time friends and exclude a party interested enough to
listen.
2.    Carnegie sandwich, tell them how good they are doing at the beginning and end
and criticize in the middle.
Jeff left out the bottom half of the sandwich and criticized others in the middle.
Very probable that Jeff supported Jefsey but antagonized others that would have gone
with Jefsey's position and now will not.
3.    We can get further by asking how a position may be changed to accommodate
differing view.  Remember either unadorned support or attacks do not help consensus.
4.    Rather than labeling something poor or rich it would be more helpful to point
out the difficulties one party is have accomplishing a given task.  Then we can focus
on solutions and not blame.
5.    All in all we must take the self out of the picture and communicate from a
perspective of the goal.  We should focus more on the "if we do this" rather than the
"they did this"

Food for thought and an acknowledgment that I am guilty of all mentioned failures,
but when my son asked "how do I get such good judgment?"  I had to respond "by
exercising bad judgment".

Thank you Jeff for your hard work on this list.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:
<snip>

>   Two very good and important points here.  The problems with
> "Joining" has been and still remains the blocking of interested
> parties or stakeholders in Joining.  Outreach has been poor
> as a result as there is little interest in doing outreach when
> interested parties or stakeholders are specifically blocked
> from joining.  A vicious circle.
>
> > If they do not
> > bother this is their problem.
>
>   The problem here is Jefsey, that many have bothered and been rebuffed
> and/or completely denied participation.  This is as you know, well
> documented.

<snip>

- --
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 #888
************************