Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #897
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, December 3 2001           Volume 01 : Number 897

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

Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 23:34:49 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

You ask about the top issue; the one Rick denied to me :-)  To have a 
management doctrine of the ICANN consistenly fitting with the network 
nature and the market expectations.

ICANN misses such a doctrine, it has good will, amateurish inputs, greed. 
The result is that it does not know where is its real mission, hence 
mission creep. And that its positions are not consistent hence waste of 
time, money, interest and control.

The GA being made of individuals under ICANN influence is much worse. As 
long as we do not work together a network cultural consensus - what does 
not prevent disagreements - giving us unity and consistency in what we 
debate or analyse, the GA will have no capcaity to produce anything 
coherent and as such is of no interest (what does not mean that members are 
without interest, by far).

The only way to reach such a cultural consensus is to work on a common 
better understanding of the Internet reality (what irritates Rick) and in 
voting positions to force our thinking and a doctrine to emerge (when the 
last vote... where the results ... ).

Jefsey

On 22:18 02/12/01, [email-masked] said:
>Rick Wesson has written to me asking, "would you mind posting the top 3
>issues the GA should be working on?"
>
>As a sense of focus is important to any organization, I thank Rick for his
>suggestion.  My thoughts are focused on representational issues...
>
>1.  The ICANN Board put forth the following resolution:  Resolved [01.132]
>that a Committee of the Board is hereby established, to be known as the
>Committee on Restructuring, to monitor and provide reports to the Board on
>these issues, and to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board
>concerning any specific proposals or applications to the Board that would or
>could affect the structure of ICANN or the composition of the Board.
>
>As the Board has also resolved [01.127] "that representation should accompany
>participation for informed, sustained involvement of interested individuals
>in ICANN policy and decision-making", and as the General Assembly is
>currently a disenfranchised institution without the right to vote in the
>DNSO, our membership should either be working on the details required to
>bring Roeland's motion (adopted by the GA) into fruition, or should
>acknowledge the GA as an unneeded structural redundancy in light of the
>coming establishment of the ALSO.  This is a time for self-organization and
>self-determination.  The GA will either act upon its own future, or it will
>have no future.
>
>2.  Patrick Corliss reminded us of the comment made by Adam Peake:  "The task
>force system should be abolished and all DNSO policy making conducted through
>the open processes: working groups".  These vile task forces have denied the
>membership of this Assembly their rights under the Bylaws for full
>participation in the substantive work of the DNSO.  In my view, it is time to
>take a stand on this issue, and I would recommend withdrawing all GA
>participation from every task force until such time as open working groups
>are fully restored.  As your thoughts may not accord with mine, other
>recommendations on the best way forward are welcomed.
>
>3.  Our promised nine seat At-Large representation on the ICANN Board is at
>risk.  Constituencies, like vultures, are lining up to feed on the carcass of
>the At-Large.  Every one of these interest groups is offering up a plan to
>enhance their own representation at the expense of the At-Large (which has
>been denied by ICANN even its own website within which it may organize its
>opposition).
>
>The ICANN Board has called for comments on the ALSC Final report.  Within
>ICANN we are the only group that does not seek to profit at the expense of
>the At-Large.  We have an obligation to defend the interests of the broader
>Internet community and must do so with an orchestrated campaign that
>demonstrates to this Board that we will not sanction abrogating the
>commitment made in our founding compact with the US government.
>
>
>Assembly members may have other opinions as to what constitutes the top three
>issues... this would be a good time to air such thoughts.
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:06:54 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 3:55:39 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> But in any case, as internet inept as I may be, the question
> remains, has Network Solutions accepted money for which
> it provides a service to Hamas

I could register a name right now, make it look like it was registered
to someone in one of the countries that sponsor terrorism, and put a
website up at any of many thousands of hosting providers with the
name, and claim responsibility for anything from JFK's assassination
to bombing attacks that may take place in the future.

In other words, you are making many assumptions, that are best left to
law enforcement officials who have the tools to see if in fact that is
the case.

I'm of the opinion it would most likely turn out not to be the case.
We have many loons in this country who would get their sick thrills by
putting up sites like that one.

It's real easy to jump to conclusions, but when you start labeling
companies has accepting money or providing services to terrorists, you
are jumping to conclusions that require a lot more information that
what you have before such accusations could have any real credibility.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 18:28:06 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

- --------------69627F5BE67182EF215135B6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

William:

Which is why, when I raise these issues here with respect to the
function of the internet itself, and ICANN, Network Solutions,
etc., I also send the same to the FBI.  As a former District
Attorney and USN Intelligence Officer, I know what's
involved, which includes going to everyone who might have
some useful input, as you have here.

Indeed, the FBI itself has its own problems. Did you know that
in the protocols sent out to local officials around the country with
respect to testing for anthrax in the mail, they are to test only
those letters that are "suspicious," from a criminal point of
view, but none are to be tested for epidemiological purposes?
A letter shows up at the office of Senator X that went through
the Brentwood sorting facility and all hell breaks loose; when I
get a couple of letters that I happen to know also went through
the Brentwood sorting facility, by confirmation from the sender,
were my letters examined?  Hell, no. (Not likely they were
contaminated, but one must recall that one of the people who
got caught trying to board a plane with a whole bunch of
weapons just happened to be caught by a random check.)
So I would counter that it is a dangerous assumption to say
that the law enforcement community, especially the FBI,
knows what the hell it is doing.  Now we have a couple of
people in Connecticut who had anthrax (the lady who died;
source unknown) and a gentlemen who evidently had a
source through the mail -- the mail system that serves
Connecticut is the same one that serves Oregon, and uses
the same sorting machines going out of D.C.  Would not
an epidemiological factor in the anthrax testing regime
have been helpful to find that out beforehand? It seems
that the FBI can't think outside of its crime-oriented box.

Bill Lovell

William X Walsh wrote:

> Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 3:55:39 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > But in any case, as internet inept as I may be, the question
> > remains, has Network Solutions accepted money for which
> > it provides a service to Hamas
>
> I could register a name right now, make it look like it was registered
> to someone in one of the countries that sponsor terrorism, and put a
> website up at any of many thousands of hosting providers with the
> name, and claim responsibility for anything from JFK's assassination
> to bombing attacks that may take place in the future.
>
> In other words, you are making many assumptions, that are best left to
> law enforcement officials who have the tools to see if in fact that is
> the case.
>
> I'm of the opinion it would most likely turn out not to be the case.
> We have many loons in this country who would get their sick thrills by
> putting up sites like that one.
>
> It's real easy to jump to conclusions, but when you start labeling
> companies has accepting money or providing services to terrorists, you
> are jumping to conclusions that require a lot more information that
> what you have before such accusations could have any real credibility.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> --
> Webcertificates.info
> SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

- --

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

- --------------69627F5BE67182EF215135B6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
William:
<p>Which is why, when I raise these issues here with respect to the
<br>function of the internet itself, and ICANN, Network Solutions,
<br>etc., I also send the same to the FBI.&nbsp; As a former District
<br>Attorney and USN Intelligence Officer, I know what's
<br>involved, which includes going to everyone who might have
<br>some useful input, as you have here.
<p>Indeed, the FBI itself has its own problems. Did you know that
<br>in the protocols sent out to local officials around the country with
<br>respect to testing for anthrax in the mail, they are to test <i>only</i>
<br>those letters that are "suspicious," from a criminal point of
<br>view, but none are to be tested for epidemiological purposes?
<br>A letter shows up at the office of Senator X that went through
<br>the Brentwood sorting facility and all hell breaks loose; when I
<br>get a couple of letters that I happen to know also went through
<br>the Brentwood sorting facility, by confirmation from the sender,
<br>were <i>my</i> letters examined?&nbsp; Hell, no. (Not likely they were
<br>contaminated, but one must recall that one of the people who
<br>got caught trying to board a plane with a whole bunch of
<br>weapons just happened to be caught by a random check.)
<br>So I would counter that it is a dangerous assumption to say
<br>that the law enforcement community, especially the FBI,
<br>knows what the hell it is doing.&nbsp; Now we have a couple of
<br>people in Connecticut who had anthrax (the lady who died;
<br>source unknown) and a gentlemen who evidently had a
<br>source through the mail -- the mail system that serves
<br>Connecticut is the same one that serves Oregon, and uses
<br>the same sorting machines going out of D.C.&nbsp; Would not
<br>an epidemiological factor in the anthrax testing regime
<br>have been helpful to find that out beforehand? It seems
<br>that the FBI can't think outside of its crime-oriented box.
<p>Bill Lovell
<p>William X Walsh wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 3:55:39 PM, William
S. Lovell wrote:
<p>> But in any case, as internet inept as I may be, the question
<br>> remains, has Network Solutions accepted money for which
<br>> it provides a service to Hamas
<p>I could register a name right now, make it look like it was registered
<br>to someone in one of the countries that sponsor terrorism, and put
a
<br>website up at any of many thousands of hosting providers with the
<br>name, and claim responsibility for anything from JFK's assassination
<br>to bombing attacks that may take place in the future.
<p>In other words, you are making many assumptions, that are best left
to
<br>law enforcement officials who have the tools to see if in fact that
is
<br>the case.
<p>I'm of the opinion it would most likely turn out not to be the case.
<br>We have many loons in this country who would get their sick thrills
by
<br>putting up sites like that one.
<p>It's real easy to jump to conclusions, but when you start labeling
<br>companies has accepting money or providing services to terrorists,
you
<br>are jumping to conclusions that require a lot more information that
<br>what you have before such accusations could have any real credibility.
<p>--
<br>Best regards,
<br>William X Walsh &lt;[email-masked]>
<br>--
<br>Webcertificates.info
<br>SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea</blockquote>

<p>--
<br>&nbsp;
<p>The URLs for Best Practices:
<br>DNSO Citation:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html</A>
<br>(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
<br>Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA." This
<br>page also includes much else about the DNSO.)
<br>Part I:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html</A>
<br>Part II:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf</A>
<br>(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
<br>available for free down load at
<br><A HREF="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html">http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html</A>.)
<br>Part III:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------69627F5BE67182EF215135B6--

- --
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, 3 Dec 2001 13:23:19 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

On Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:06:54 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

> Sunday, Sunday, December 02, 2001, 3:55:39 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > But in any case, as internet inept as I may be, the question
> > remains, has Network Solutions accepted money for which
> > it provides a service to Hamas

<snip>

> In other words, you are making many assumptions, that are best left to
> law enforcement officials who have the tools to see if in fact that is
> the case.
> 
> I'm of the opinion it would most likely turn out not to be the case.
> We have many loons in this country who would get their sick thrills by
> putting up sites like that one.
> 
> It's real easy to jump to conclusions, but when you start labeling
> companies has accepting money or providing services to terrorists, you
> are jumping to conclusions that require a lot more information that
> what you have before such accusations could have any real credibility.

I have never agreed with you more, William, than I do now.

If I am not mistaken Joanna Lane has already brought this to our attention.
I also thought the GA agreed that ICANN should comply with the law.

Personally, I think the DNS is enough of an emotive sinkhole.

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: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 21:32:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  I share much of the feeling that Jefsey expressed below.  It seems that
some others do as well and have openly stated thus.

  To be more specific however for what the top three issues are for the
DNSO GA are in my opinion as follows:

1.) A redesign of the current UDRP or it's complete replacement.

2.) The dispensation of .ORG

3.) REAL outreach where any and all interested parties as required by the
     White Paper and the MoU into the DNSO GA or any other DNSO
     constituency.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> You ask about the top issue; the one Rick denied to me :-)  To have a
> management doctrine of the ICANN consistenly fitting with the network
> nature and the market expectations.
>
> ICANN misses such a doctrine, it has good will, amateurish inputs, greed.
> The result is that it does not know where is its real mission, hence
> mission creep. And that its positions are not consistent hence waste of
> time, money, interest and control.
>
> The GA being made of individuals under ICANN influence is much worse. As
> long as we do not work together a network cultural consensus - what does
> not prevent disagreements - giving us unity and consistency in what we
> debate or analyse, the GA will have no capcaity to produce anything
> coherent and as such is of no interest (what does not mean that members are
> without interest, by far).
>
> The only way to reach such a cultural consensus is to work on a common
> better understanding of the Internet reality (what irritates Rick) and in
> voting positions to force our thinking and a doctrine to emerge (when the
> last vote... where the results ... ).
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 22:18 02/12/01, [email-masked] said:
> >Rick Wesson has written to me asking, "would you mind posting the top 3
> >issues the GA should be working on?"
> >
> >As a sense of focus is important to any organization, I thank Rick for his
> >suggestion.  My thoughts are focused on representational issues...
> >
> >1.  The ICANN Board put forth the following resolution:  Resolved [01.132]
> >that a Committee of the Board is hereby established, to be known as the
> >Committee on Restructuring, to monitor and provide reports to the Board on
> >these issues, and to evaluate and make recommendations to the Board
> >concerning any specific proposals or applications to the Board that would or
> >could affect the structure of ICANN or the composition of the Board.
> >
> >As the Board has also resolved [01.127] "that representation should accompany
> >participation for informed, sustained involvement of interested individuals
> >in ICANN policy and decision-making", and as the General Assembly is
> >currently a disenfranchised institution without the right to vote in the
> >DNSO, our membership should either be working on the details required to
> >bring Roeland's motion (adopted by the GA) into fruition, or should
> >acknowledge the GA as an unneeded structural redundancy in light of the
> >coming establishment of the ALSO.  This is a time for self-organization and
> >self-determination.  The GA will either act upon its own future, or it will
> >have no future.
> >
> >2.  Patrick Corliss reminded us of the comment made by Adam Peake:  "The task
> >force system should be abolished and all DNSO policy making conducted through
> >the open processes: working groups".  These vile task forces have denied the
> >membership of this Assembly their rights under the Bylaws for full
> >participation in the substantive work of the DNSO.  In my view, it is time to
> >take a stand on this issue, and I would recommend withdrawing all GA
> >participation from every task force until such time as open working groups
> >are fully restored.  As your thoughts may not accord with mine, other
> >recommendations on the best way forward are welcomed.
> >
> >3.  Our promised nine seat At-Large representation on the ICANN Board is at
> >risk.  Constituencies, like vultures, are lining up to feed on the carcass of
> >the At-Large.  Every one of these interest groups is offering up a plan to
> >enhance their own representation at the expense of the At-Large (which has
> >been denied by ICANN even its own website within which it may organize its
> >opposition).
> >
> >The ICANN Board has called for comments on the ALSC Final report.  Within
> >ICANN we are the only group that does not seek to profit at the expense of
> >the At-Large.  We have an obligation to defend the interests of the broader
> >Internet community and must do so with an orchestrated campaign that
> >demonstrates to this Board that we will not sanction abrogating the
> >commitment made in our founding compact with the US government.
> >
> >
> >Assembly members may have other opinions as to what constitutes the top three
> >issues... this would be a good time to air such thoughts.
> >
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 21:45:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] "Terms of Reference" or "Task Force Agenda" ??

Patrick and all assembly members,

  I must agree with the feelings that Patrick here is expressing.
It seems that the registrant and the stakeholder/user is not being
represented or allow to participate AT ALL AGAIN.  As such
it is not possible to determine ANY policy that meet the MoU
requirements.  Perhaps Danny could aid in facilitating such
open participation along with Eric?

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 02:09:42 EST, Danny Younger wrote:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00078.html
>
> > Perhaps someone can explain to me why we are dancing around the issue.
> > The clear objective of this Task Force is to establish a "consensus policy",
> > and that is exactly what the terms of reference should be stipulating.
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 07:11:36 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00081.html
>
> > if we could incorporate into the document language  insuring that the new
> > mgt. company will not impose any onerous accreditation fees or "new
> > financial barriers"  and will honor the ICANN accredited status of the
> > existing registrars this would be a very good start.
>
> My apologies to Philip Sheppard for asking him to provide URL links
> to the Terms of Reference (ToR) for each of the Task Forces.  I had
> assumed that, as in normal political discourse, the "terms" had been
> specified by the referring body (in this case the Names Council).
>
> How silly of me  !!  That's not the idea at all.
>
> The truth is that the Names Council stacks the Task Forces who
> then write the Terms of Reference to suit themselves.
>
> Duh !!
>
> However, to avoid confusion could I ask that the wording "Terms of
> Reference" be changed to "Task Force Agenda" or something similar.
>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 23:06:13 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Budget Input Request

Mr. Lynn,

You have posted a 2002-2003 ICANN Budget Input Request to the Council list:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00460.html

You have also made a point of stating, "This letter and attached documents 
have also been emailed directly to DNSO constituencies."  

You have once more ignored our membership by failing to forward your message 
to the GA.  This is not the first time that this has happened.  You, sir, owe 
this Assembly an apology.

Best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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, 3 Dec 2001 05:09:33 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, at 15:55 [=GMT-0800], William S. Lovell wrote:

[...]
> The next question, of course, since the provision of internet
> services is one of the means of "supporting terrorism" that
> the FBI has specified, is not your assumed reseller and/or
> OLM.NET supporting terrorism? (This one happens to
> affect Israel instead of the U.S., but I'm sure U. S.
> examples could be found,

Are you calling for the shutdown of .MIL ?

> and I make no distinction when
> it comes to the slaughter of innocent civilians of another
> country -- it falls within the rubric of international terrorism.)

There are innocent people killed in Afghanistan, and not only by
terrorists.

Basically, 'terrorist' is a political concept as well as a moral one,
I think. Silencing their guns is good. Silencing their voices not, if
I may say so.

I do not think it is a good idea that the US is going to define what
sites are politically acceptable in the DNS. 

- --
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, 3 Dec 2001 17:37:38 +1300
From: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Top Three Issues

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 10:18 AM
Subject: [ga] Top Three Issues

> As a sense of focus is important to any organization, I thank Rick for his
> suggestion.  My thoughts are focused on representational issues...
>
> snip >

> 3.  Our promised nine seat At-Large representation on the ICANN Board is
at
> risk.  Constituencies, like vultures, are lining up to feed on the carcass
of
> the At-Large.

With respect, I think you may be mistaken in asserting that we (the GA) were
promised these. The confusion which equates the At Large with this body make
debate difficult, and is easily turned to the advantage of others. Please
separate issues of importance to the GA of the DNSO from those of the @LM.

> Every one of these interest groups is offering up a plan to
> enhance their own representation at the expense of the At-Large (which has
> been denied by ICANN even its own website within which it may organize its
> opposition).
>

Let me correct the impression you may have of the ccSO*. It does not depend
on its acceptance on any "expense" to the ALSO. It has proceeded, so far,
without any specification that its Board Seats would be those of the
original 9. To be sure, a number of suggestions have floated, but the source
of the seats has always been a question for the Board in terms of its
overall re-structuring.

> The ICANN Board has called for comments on the ALSC Final report.  Within
> ICANN we are the only group that does not seek to profit at the expense of
> the At-Large.

Repetition of this does not make it so.
You should be aware that in our view, the At Large interests of registrants
in ccTLDs ( which interests we take to be in a White Paper Principles-based
ICANN) are being in many cases, and theoretically can be best provided for
by the ccTLDs, and to that extent there is an overlap if not a synergy
between the work of the ccSO and the ALSO.

>We have an obligation to defend the interests of the broader
> Internet community and must do so with an orchestrated campaign that
> demonstrates to this Board that we will not sanction abrogating the
> commitment made in our founding compact with the US government.

Again, I think this confuses the role of the GA with that of the At Large
movement.

There is no founding compact between the At Large Movement and the USG. The
initial Board of ICANN said it would develop a corporation which met the
principles of the White Paper. DoC drafted an MoU. That has been reported
against and augmented, with the time extended.

If the USG ever feels that the ICANN which eventually presents itself does
not meet the terms of the White Paper, or any new conditions mandated by the
USG before transfer of technical management of the Legacy Root's names and
numbers, it will seek to have ICANN make any necessary changes, or decline
to transfer.

Focusing on the details at the origin of this experiment will be of
historical interest only.

Regards

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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 21:17:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

William,

Last I check we still had a 1st ammendment, and for the record
your post is off topic for the GA. please move this thread to a more
appropiate forum.

- -rick

On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:

> These are pages on which Hamas and the Qassam Brigades
> take credit for such things as the latest atrocity against a bunch
> of young civilians in Israel, and which Network Solutions hosts
> in order that such obscenities can be disseminated to the world.
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Registrant:
>   palestinian information center (PALESTINE-INFO2-DOM)
>      Beruit
>      Beruit, LB
>      LB
>
>      Domain Name: PALESTINE-INFO.COM
>
>      Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
>         Sadaqa, Ziyad  (ZK30)  [email-masked]
>         Salam
>         512 Cedar Bend Cir #104
>         Orlando, FL 32825
>         407-719-0460
>      Technical Contact:
>         Administration  (AD3086-ORG)  [email-masked]
>         FastDns Network
>         3080 Ogden rd
>         lisle, IL 60532
>         US
>         630-357-8545 Fax- - 630-357-8545
>         Fax- - - 630-357-8545
>
>      Record last updated on 30-Nov-2001.
>      Record expires on 01-Oct-2011.
>      Record created on 01-Oct-1998.
>      Database last updated on 2-Dec-2001 06:20:00 EST.
>
>      Domain servers in listed order:
>
>      NS.HOST4U.NET                209.150.128.30
>      NS2.HOST4U.NET               209.150.129.3
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

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

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

Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 23:28:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Budget Input Request

Danny and all assembly members,

  Of course you are quite right here Danny!  Of course it has been the
mantra for about three months now given Mike Roberts comments
in a paper he presented to the ALSC that the DNSO in general, and the
DNSO GA to which he referred to indirectly is too costly and
perhaps need to be eliminated.  So perhaps this is why Mr. Lynn
has neglected in sharing this information directly with the DNSO
GA members.  See for reference:  http://www.atlargestudy.org/roberts_paper.html

[email-masked] wrote:

> Mr. Lynn,
>
> You have posted a 2002-2003 ICANN Budget Input Request to the Council list:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00460.html
>
> You have also made a point of stating, "This letter and attached documents
> have also been emailed directly to DNSO constituencies."
>
> You have once more ignored our membership by failing to forward your message
> to the GA.  This is not the first time that this has happened.  You, sir, owe
> this Assembly an apology.
>
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 21:35:48 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international terror

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> William,
>
> Last I check we still had a 1st ammendment, and for the record
> your post is off topic for the GA. please move this thread to a more
> appropiate forum.

The irony of this post hardly needs comment.
So file a complaint against my posts.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> -rick
>
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> > These are pages on which Hamas and the Qassam Brigades
> > take credit for such things as the latest atrocity against a bunch
> > of young civilians in Israel, and which Network Solutions hosts
> > in order that such obscenities can be disseminated to the world.
> >
> > Bill Lovell
> >
> > Registrant:
> >   palestinian information center (PALESTINE-INFO2-DOM)
> >      Beruit
> >      Beruit, LB
> >      LB
> >
> >      Domain Name: PALESTINE-INFO.COM
> >
> >      Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
> >         Sadaqa, Ziyad  (ZK30)  [email-masked]
> >         Salam
> >         512 Cedar Bend Cir #104
> >         Orlando, FL 32825
> >         407-719-0460
> >      Technical Contact:
> >         Administration  (AD3086-ORG)  [email-masked]
> >         FastDns Network
> >         3080 Ogden rd
> >         lisle, IL 60532
> >         US
> >         630-357-8545 Fax- - 630-357-8545
> >         Fax- - - 630-357-8545
> >
> >      Record last updated on 30-Nov-2001.
> >      Record expires on 01-Oct-2011.
> >      Record created on 01-Oct-1998.
> >      Database last updated on 2-Dec-2001 06:20:00 EST.
> >
> >      Domain servers in listed order:
> >
> >      NS.HOST4U.NET                209.150.128.30
> >      NS2.HOST4U.NET               209.150.129.3
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >

- --

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #897
************************