Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #902
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, December 4 2001          Volume 01 : Number 902

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:45:53 -0500
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

patrick....

i wont be a "civil" as peter dengate thrush was with your
comments................

Elisabeth is a 'highly ethical" person and i am "disgusted" at your
characterization .

you are only "talking to hear yourself" and it baseless "garbage" like this
which only serve to cause any posting you make to this or any other list
that much less "meaningful"..

you only disrespect yourself with comments like this.

ken stubbs

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 4:18 PM
Subject: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

> ==== > NC Teleconf Agenda 13 December 2001 <=====
>
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:50:36 +0100, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
>
> >        DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 13 December 2001 - agenda
>
> <snip>
>
> 2. Adoption of amended final report on review (Philip Sheppard) 15 mins
>      - agreement to dissolve the Review task force
>      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html
>
> $$ Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency
>
>   3. Adoption of final report on dot Org (provisional) (Milton
Mueller) -15
>      mins.
>      http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00239.html
>
> ~$ Milton Mueller, NCDNH Constituency
>
>   4. Discussion on IDNs with IETF representative (provisional) Elisabeth
>      Porteneuve - 30 mins.
>      - next steps, IDN task force
>
> $$ Elizabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD Registries
>
>   5. Task force transfers TF (Marilyn Cade) - 5 mins.
>      - comments from the GA (Danny Younger) 10 mins.
>
> $$ Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
>
>   6. Task Force update since November 14 - 30 mins.
>      - UDRP Caroline Chicoine
>
> $$ Caroline Chicoine, IP Constituency
>
>      - Structure Philip Sheppard
>
> $$ Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency
>
>      - WhoIs Paul Kane/Marilyn Cade
>
> $$ Paul Kane, Registrars Constituency
> $$ Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
>
> Of the constituency members mentioned, we have:
>
> $$    Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
> $$    Caroline Chicoine, IP Constituency
> $$    Paul Kane, Registrars Constituency
> ~$    Milton Mueller, NCDNH Constituency
> $$    Elizabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD Registries (Herald for Philip Sheppard)
> $$    Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency (also associated with IP)
>
> By my count, that's:
>
>     5 of 6 supporting business interests.
>     1 of 6 supporting nonprofits.
>     0 of 6 supporting individual registrants.
>
> Capture, anyone ??
>
> 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
>
>

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

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

Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 11:01:31 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

On 11:35 3/12/01 -0500, [email-masked] said:
>The final report of the Review Task Force has been posted with new amendments
>by Phil Sheppard which grant even more powers to Council Task Forces at the
>expense of Working Groups:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00464.html

Wasn't it Roberto who was sitting on that Review Task Force on behalf of 
the GA?
I did not see his contributions to the council ML.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:04:36 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report 

Joop,

Phil Sheppard did not post the Review TF report to the TF mailing list (it 
was posted to the Council list instead), and he obviously didn't consult with 
the TF membership prior to authoring his own amendments.  We can't blame 
Roberto as the NC Chair apparently didn't bother to send him a copy of the 
revisions or even put it on a list that would be read by all the TF members.

- --
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 16:31:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Terrorism, Joanna, Is Seriously Off Topic

Leah,

because ICANN doesn't enforce the US Law in regards to selling
domains to US embargoed countries. Take it up with someone in
law enforcement, not here.

- -rick

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, L Gallegos wrote:

> Please tell me how this is off topic as it relates to domain names being
> sold to US embargoed countries by US registrars?  ICANN is still a US
> corporation and many of the registrars are also US based.  It is not
> outside the scope of this list to discuss those issues.
>
> Also, how is Joanna's "unpleasant" attitutude different from those set
> forth by many others?  Where is the emotional underlay different from
> many, many others' posts to this list?
>
> Where does it seem to indicate that Joanna's "agenda" is different from
> the majority of the GA when it comes to individuals rights?
>
> Please show me where there is an attempt by Joanna at a political
> power grab?  What I have seen is a somewhat passionate attempt to
> participate in a forum by an individual who does happen to represent the
> views of individuals, whether that attempt is a personal one or one
> endorsed by the GA.  I truly fail to see what one individual out of the
> total number of TF members can to to grab power.
>
> I just don't see it.
>
> It seems to me that every time an individual is willing to give the
> passion, time and effort to areas where individuals need a voice, that
> willingness is shunned or totally discouraged to the point where he or
> she gives up.
>
> Leah
>
>
> On 4 Dec 2001, at 9:01, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Dear Danny
> >
> > On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 16:59:37 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03352.html
> >
> > I understand that you continue in your position as Chair of the General
> > Assembly.  In that role you have spent significant time and energy
> > promoting Joanna Lane for every possible position you could think of.  In
> > fact, you invented a few to promote her political ascent.
> >
> > During this time, a number of people, including myself, have questioned her
> > unpleasant attitude.  In fact, Joanna has, to my knowledge, gratuitously
> > offended several people.  Nor has she ever shown any accountability in
> > promoting her own agenda.  She does not, for example, respond to any
> > questions or even heed any attempts at moderation.
> >
> > It is my view that Joanna Lane is quite unsuited to represent the GA in any
> > forum whatsoever.  I would suggest that you discontinue your support of
> > Joanna's power grab unless and until you have been given a specific mandate
> > by the Assembly membership.
> >
> > May I also suggest that you do something to resolve the running sore of
> > list moderation.  You started with five people, as I remember, and you have
> > none left.  That is a sorry reflection of your leadership style.  Otherwise
> > the list will continue to degenerate.
> >
> > And it will become impossible for you to claim credibility with the power
> > cliques.
> >
> > I ask that, in particular, because I wish you consider this email as a
> > complaint against Joanna Lane's continuing insistence at off topic posting.
> > You must be aware that a number of list participants have disagreed with
> > Joanna's approach here.  In fact, it has divided the GA.
> >
> > So you must mediate Joanna's intransigence or see the proposed vote of no
> > confidence in ICANN turn into a vote of no confidence in Danny Younger.
> >
> > You have deeply saddened me.  Please stop this.  Do it now.
> >
> > Regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> > cc [ga abuse]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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
>

- --
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 16:33:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to  international terror

Kristy,

Censorship Enforcement is not a issue the GA should take up because the
DNSO can't make such recomendations to the ICANN BoD which can't enforce
such.

please take this topic to a more appropiate forum.

thanks,

- -rick

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Kristy McKee wrote:

> IMHO our American Movie & Music rating system works rather well.
>
> Why not incorporate this system into one we can work with online.
>
> Technically the result of being classified as aggressive enough to be
> considered terrorist would result with the domain's resolution being
> forwarded to the equivalent of itself plus the TLD for known and presumed
> terrorists.
>
> Censor by categorization; therefore avoiding censorship.
>
> ~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
>

- --
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 17:02:04 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

Monday, Monday, December 03, 2001, 3:45:53 PM, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> patrick....

> i wont be a "civil" as peter dengate thrush was with your
> comments................

> Elisabeth is a 'highly ethical" person and i am "disgusted" at your
> characterization .

Garbage.

Elisabeth is the secretariat of the DNSO Correct?

Then she was the one responsible for refusing to enforce the
moderators decisions in a uniform fashion, flat out refusing to permit
sanctions, regardless of how valid they were, against Kent Crispen.

A decision she had no right to make.

Your characterization of her as a "highly ethical" person, is simply
ridiculous.

- -- 
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: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:02:12 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:45:53 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:

> i wont be a "civil" as peter dengate thrush was with your
> comments................
>
> Elisabeth is a 'highly ethical" person and i am "disgusted" at your
> characterization .
>
> you are only "talking to hear yourself" and it baseless "garbage" like this
> which only serve to cause any posting you make to this or any other list
> that much less "meaningful"..
>
> you only disrespect yourself with comments like this.

Hi Ken

It's funny how both you and Peter Dengate Thrush focused on a single word
in my email and rather ignored the more substantive comments about capture
by business interests.

Believe me, I weary of the bullshit generated by the business constituency and
would like to see the other business interests take a contrary view.

In relation to your comments, you report any breaches of the list posting
rules to the proper authorities, Ken.  That is, as you well know, the
[ga-abuse] mailing list.  Peter is more than welcome to do the same.

However, you should realise that your email constitutes a personal attack on
me as defined by the GA list posting rules.  That is hardly the appropriate
way to respond, now is it?

In fact, I chose the word extremely carefully, Ken.  It applies to Elizabeth
with the utmost precision.  From http://www.dictionary.com/

her·ald (n.)

(1)    A person who carries or proclaims important news; a messenger.
(2)    One that gives a sign or indication of something to come; a harbinger.
(3)    An official whose specialty is heraldry.
(4)    (a)    An official formerly charged with making royal proclamations and
                 bearing messages of state between sovereigns.
        (b)    An official who formerly made proclamations and conveyed
                challenges at a tournament.

In a formal sense, a herald is a person who announces important news.  It
seems to come from Old French in the form heralt, heraut or herault.  Of
course, it could have a different meaning in modern French language.

You will note that all of the above meanings, except (3), would apply to the
DNSO Secretariat.  And you will remember that Elisabeth Porteneuve has spent
considerable time in that position.  As such she made every formal
announcement in relation to the Names Council.  Of course, Philip Sheppard is
the Chair of the Names Council.  So it is a reasonable characterisation.

I won't say any more at this stage but I'd urge you to step back if you want
to protect Elisabeth's sensitivities.  In any case, do you really think that's
offensive?  The word "herald" ??  I think thou dost protest too much !!  As
I say you are very welcome to report it to [ga-abuse]

As far as Peter Dengate Thrush's comments.  He said:

> And, btw, the ccTLDs do not routinely support business interests, do not
> routinely oppose non profits (InternetNZ is one), and many support
> individual registrants.

You say "many support individual registrants".  I'd ask "How many?"

Or to put it another way, out of 240 country codes, how many would you say are
*opposed* to business interests?  Answer, none.

So please don't waste my time.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 19:12:31 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to  international terror

Rick and all assembly members,

  ICANN cannot even enforce it's own bylaws, contracts with it's
"Accredited" Registrars and Registries, nor it's own "Accredited"
Constituencies.  Does that mean that we should take the issues
related to these bodies up on some other forum as well?

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Kristy,
>
> Censorship Enforcement is not a issue the GA should take up because the
> DNSO can't make such recomendations to the ICANN BoD which can't enforce
> such.
>
> please take this topic to a more appropiate forum.
>
> thanks,
>
> -rick
>
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > IMHO our American Movie & Music rating system works rather well.
> >
> > Why not incorporate this system into one we can work with online.
> >
> > Technically the result of being classified as aggressive enough to be
> > considered terrorist would result with the domain's resolution being
> > forwarded to the equivalent of itself plus the TLD for known and presumed
> > terrorists.
> >
> > Censor by categorization; therefore avoiding censorship.
> >
> > ~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
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 20:11:07 -0500
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Terrorism, Joanna, Is Seriously Off Topic

On 3 Dec 2001, at 16:31, Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Leah,
> 
> because ICANN doesn't enforce the US Law in regards to selling
> domains to US embargoed countries. Take it up with someone in
> law enforcement, not here.
> 

Because ICANN accredits registrars, who are, by contract, oblgated to 
abide by law.  If a US registar does not abide by law, then IcANN has 
the right to do something about it, and has a responsibility to investigate 
it, since it is a US corporation.  Why is the clause in the contract if it 
means nothing?

Leah

- --
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 20:25:09 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Interim Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force  

Icann has created another new public forum (note the announcement at 
http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/interim-report-03dec01.htm ) but 
still no forum for the At-Large.  This Interim Report on new TLDs seems to 
focus on the "risks associated with moving ahead too fast".  Have a look.
- --
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 18:05:18 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Inte rests ??

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:02 PM

|> Elisabeth is the secretariat of the DNSO Correct?

I thought that I had just read where that wasn't correct.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 14:39:02 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Network Solutions contribution to international	terror

At 08:40 3/12/01 -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
>  They [the terrorists]
>are no more worthy of "freedom of speech" rights, than child pornographers
>or Nazis, yet less than a handful of people here have taken a responsible
>attitude or even shown an interest.

Responsible attitute is also a great reluctance to encourage Registrars to 
exercise power to judge who is worthy of free speech and who is not.
Responsible attitude is also not to allow ICANN any mission creep in the 
form of  content policing until (Individual) Domain Name Holders are fully 
represented at all levels. And even then...

If I understand you right, your main objection is the Hamas press release 
on the Palestine-info site.
The site registration itself, being registered to an admin contact in 
Beirut, may or may not be currently in violation of US statute. This 
violation might disappear when particular content would be removed. This is 
between the US Registrars and the FBI, and really up to the FBI.  They may 
consider it more useful to keep such well known sites above ground. (this 
is *really* off-topic)
The problem is that content such as is offending you and me, can be moved 
tomorrow to ostriches-on-the-beach.com registered to another entity with no 
"terrorist" links.

It is one thing to hold DN holders responsible for content on their sites, 
quite another to hold Registrars responsible for registering Domains that 
may post "terrorist" content.

Urging ICANN to have the Domain yanked is using an "elephant gun on a fly" 
approach.
A lot of collateral damage and the fly will appear somewhere else.
There are better ways to apply the law to deal with illegal content.

>There is a thunderous silence from all
>the leading Registry and Registrar Compliance Executives, and many are
>reading this list. Why? Are they cowards, or in denial?

I do not want to speak for Registrars, but I may speak against them if the 
security of Registered Domains becomes dependent on their subjective 
judgement on who is a terrorist or what is illegal content. Registrars must 
respect their registrants, until the proper authorities force them to act 
otherwise.

O.K., I grant you that some of this is on topic.  NSI may want to address 
it or it may choose not to.

But war on terrorism/free speech/censorship can be a highly divisive topic 
at a time when the GA needs to pull together to guard its rights in the 
ICANN structure.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:48:20 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Inte rests ??

Monday, Monday, December 03, 2001, 6:05:18 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

|>> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
|>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 5:02 PM

|>> Elisabeth is the secretariat of the DNSO Correct?

> I thought that I had just read where that wasn't correct.

Well, I'll rephrase.

She was when the specific act in question occurred.

- -- 
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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 20:11:22 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:58 AM

|> You indicate that a cannon is necessary... what do you propose?

Proper escalation requires successive steps via;
DNSO/GA -> DNSO/NC -> ICANN/BoD -> USG/DOC -> USG/Congress.
At each step, relevent issues need to be surfaced, for that step, and as
that step's non-responsiveness is documented, issues are prepared for the
next step. One of the current problems are that the last two steps are
somewhat preoccupied with the current shooting-war. Therefore, issues have
to be refined that are relevent to the context of the current focus of those
steps.
 
There's proposal somewhere around here that a collective document be sent to
selected Congress-critters. Many of you, that have been reading me since the
NSI Domain-Policy list, may recall that the last thing I EVER wanted to get
involved here was the US Congress. But, that was during the beginings of the
dot-com daze and I was afraid that the Internet would become a political
foozball (Clinton era). Well, those days are gone, times have changed, and I
don't really see another way to go. We've already gone down all of the
rat-holes (some of them, 2-3 times), and they're all dry. There is no cheese
at the center of this maze, not even the scent, and they're about to drop us
into the ALSO maze, with equal probability of getting flim-flammed (dead
certainty).

I might point out that if we started such a collective document that it will
find resistance and folks would try and disrupt the work, or add poisoned
riders to it. I don't think that we can succesfully build such a document on
this list. We're talking about politicking in the only place that matters,
as far as the ICANN is concerned, the US Congress. Also, this stuff takes
money and the ICANN won't let the GA have any.

MHSC has some assets that can be used, like DNSO.NET. However, I am entering
into a very busy time and it looks like I'll be travelling a lot this month.
Therefore, I won't have the time to put into this, other than reviewing
progress. I also may be moving my servers sometime in Jan02. However, I can
provide DNS for DNSO.NET anywhere else that suits the purpose, like a
3rd-level registry. I also have a SUsE Linux box (falcon.mhsc.com), with
sendmail and majordomo, that I don't have time to configure.

There's more, but no time, something just came up here.
- --
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 23:21:05 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

All,

Might I suggest that neither of these messages is productive? While the
tactics that Patrick has employed aren't exactly subtle and certainly err on
the side of caustic as you point out Ken, the basic issue that Patrick
raises has some merit. And Patrick, certainly your case could be argued
without assassinating the character of those you don't agree with.

If we could all back off from the trigger on the rhetoric gun that we have
been walking around with and pointing at each other almost randomly, then
perhaps we might get some real work done.

Other, seemingly more productive and less political circles around the
internet (damned engineers get everything right, or rewrite it to get it
right ;), value rough consensus, & working code over mailing list rhetoric.
I haven't heard anyone state that individuals don't need meaningful
representation within ICANN. I've also seen some pretty good arguments both
for and against the ALSC and NAIS reports. What we are not seeing are valid
proposals that stand against the current propositions on the table - on the
contrary, as the thread quoted below indicates, whining, sniping and
counter-sniping seem to be the order of the day.

Guerilla tactics and bush fights can only take an issue so far - what we
need now is rough consensus and working code (or perhaps the reverse -
anything is preferable to the status quo.) Perhaps if we would take the time
to listen to one another just a bit more, talk just a little bit less and
propose a little bit more concretely, we might discover that consensus is
not such a difficult obligation to fulfill.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
To: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>; "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

> patrick....
>
> i wont be a "civil" as peter dengate thrush was with your
> comments................
>
> Elisabeth is a 'highly ethical" person and i am "disgusted" at your
> characterization .
>
> you are only "talking to hear yourself" and it baseless "garbage" like
this
> which only serve to cause any posting you make to this or any other list
> that much less "meaningful"..
>
> you only disrespect yourself with comments like this.
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
> To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 4:18 PM
> Subject: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??
>
>
> > ==== > NC Teleconf Agenda 13 December 2001 <=====
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 12:50:36 +0100, DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> >
> > >        DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 13 December 2001 - agenda
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > 2. Adoption of amended final report on review (Philip Sheppard) 15 mins
> >      - agreement to dissolve the Review task force
> >      http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011010.NCreview-report.html
> >
> > $$ Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency
> >
> >   3. Adoption of final report on dot Org (provisional) (Milton
> Mueller) -15
> >      mins.
> >      http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00239.html
> >
> > ~$ Milton Mueller, NCDNH Constituency
> >
> >   4. Discussion on IDNs with IETF representative (provisional) Elisabeth
> >      Porteneuve - 30 mins.
> >      - next steps, IDN task force
> >
> > $$ Elizabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD Registries
> >
> >   5. Task force transfers TF (Marilyn Cade) - 5 mins.
> >      - comments from the GA (Danny Younger) 10 mins.
> >
> > $$ Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
> >
> >   6. Task Force update since November 14 - 30 mins.
> >      - UDRP Caroline Chicoine
> >
> > $$ Caroline Chicoine, IP Constituency
> >
> >      - Structure Philip Sheppard
> >
> > $$ Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency
> >
> >      - WhoIs Paul Kane/Marilyn Cade
> >
> > $$ Paul Kane, Registrars Constituency
> > $$ Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
> >
> > Of the constituency members mentioned, we have:
> >
> > $$    Marilyn Cade, Business Constituency
> > $$    Caroline Chicoine, IP Constituency
> > $$    Paul Kane, Registrars Constituency
> > ~$    Milton Mueller, NCDNH Constituency
> > $$    Elizabeth Porteneuve, ccTLD Registries (Herald for Philip
Sheppard)
> > $$    Philip Sheppard, Business Constituency (also associated with IP)
> >
> > By my count, that's:
> >
> >     5 of 6 supporting business interests.
> >     1 of 6 supporting nonprofits.
> >     0 of 6 supporting individual registrants.
> >
> > Capture, anyone ??
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:02:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

Roeland,

Before you go firing off letters to congress critters I'd like to see some
consensus in the GA on the topic.

On the issue of monies, the GA can do what every other DNSO constituency
does:

   o find someone you trust
   o have that person open a trust account
   o elect officers (chair, co-chair, and treasurer)
   o levy dues
   o spend the money in the interest of the GA.
   o report how monies are spent, leave an accountable paper
     trail for the public to evaluate the good faith effort.

There is nothing preventing the GA from doing the above.

- -rick

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:58 AM
>
> |> You indicate that a cannon is necessary... what do you propose?
>
> Proper escalation requires successive steps via;
> DNSO/GA -> DNSO/NC -> ICANN/BoD -> USG/DOC -> USG/Congress.
> At each step, relevent issues need to be surfaced, for that step, and as
> that step's non-responsiveness is documented, issues are prepared for the
> next step. One of the current problems are that the last two steps are
> somewhat preoccupied with the current shooting-war. Therefore, issues have
> to be refined that are relevent to the context of the current focus of those
> steps.
>
> There's proposal somewhere around here that a collective document be sent to
> selected Congress-critters. Many of you, that have been reading me since the
> NSI Domain-Policy list, may recall that the last thing I EVER wanted to get
> involved here was the US Congress. But, that was during the beginings of the
> dot-com daze and I was afraid that the Internet would become a political
> foozball (Clinton era). Well, those days are gone, times have changed, and I
> don't really see another way to go. We've already gone down all of the
> rat-holes (some of them, 2-3 times), and they're all dry. There is no cheese
> at the center of this maze, not even the scent, and they're about to drop us
> into the ALSO maze, with equal probability of getting flim-flammed (dead
> certainty).
>
> I might point out that if we started such a collective document that it will
> find resistance and folks would try and disrupt the work, or add poisoned
> riders to it. I don't think that we can succesfully build such a document on
> this list. We're talking about politicking in the only place that matters,
> as far as the ICANN is concerned, the US Congress. Also, this stuff takes
> money and the ICANN won't let the GA have any.
>
> MHSC has some assets that can be used, like DNSO.NET. However, I am entering
> into a very busy time and it looks like I'll be travelling a lot this month.
> Therefore, I won't have the time to put into this, other than reviewing
> progress. I also may be moving my servers sometime in Jan02. However, I can
> provide DNS for DNSO.NET anywhere else that suits the purpose, like a
> 3rd-level registry. I also have a SUsE Linux box (falcon.mhsc.com), with
> sendmail and majordomo, that I don't have time to configure.
>
> There's more, but no time, something just came up here.
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #902
************************