Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #904
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, December 4 2001          Volume 01 : Number 904

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

Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 00:58:28 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Terrorism, Joanna, Is Seriously Off Topic

On 23:23 03/12/01, L Gallegos said:
>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.

Dear Patrick,
I must say that I agree with Leah. Also that your post was quite ad feminam 
(BTW Leah you say that each time an "individual...she gives up": personal 
memories?). You were also quite motivated at a time with Danny's imposed 
sub-lists.

The only tactical disagreement I have with Joanna is that we are not here 
to represent anyone. This is an ICANN trick: "tell me who you represent", 
and then "how can you pretend to represent millions of people" (cf. 
NCKings's today report about the GA Members). We represent concerns with 
our expertise, experience, enthusiasm. If we say otherwise we trap ourselves.

Only NC people are elected (by who to be representatives? ... by themselves!).
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 12:47:58 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

On 18:21 03/12/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>If one were going to try and make an impact, I think that this is exactly
>the wrong approach. Withdrawing activity only let's the opponent work
>unmolested and out of oversight. They can later claim that we never
>participated and the withdrawal was tacit agreement to whatever actions are
>being taken.

I think I disagree, but this is a reasonable alternative. Let consider it 
seriously.
Please remember that the disagreement is over the way we participate (TF 
formula), so continuing to participate is accepting what we disagree.

>Danny, the past few weeks have made me disappointed in many things. The
>prime focus of the GA should be to bring itself forward. What you are doing
>here is pounding on the blockhouse door, with your head. Everyone knows that
>blockhouses only respond to cannons. You're only giving yourself a headache.

There is another image. You are blocked at the door, so you go out through 
the windows where they do not expect you. The claim is that only the NC is 
representative because it is elected and from hen only NC TF are 
representative if not polluted by non representative GA Members. My 
suggestion is to get a vote. Idealy the best would be to elect a council of 
delegates (not to have it designated as Danny tried).

I suppose that "votes", "delegates" words may ring a bell in the spheres 
you want to approach and in the media?

>Proper escalation requires successive steps via;
>DNSO/GA -> DNSO/NC -> ICANN/BoD -> USG/DOC -> USG/Congress.

This is your US approach. I think it should paralleled in Europe, Japan, 
Australia, etc... the kind of no network management cooked by the NC is 
worth the entire world to be share in the fun: the network of the networks 
management afraid of the network culture and resolving into closed tea cup 
parties.

france@large has already introduced a petition to the European Council. 
This kind of things takes time, but I am sure that if the text also went to 
the Japanese Diet, to the Congress, to different Parliaments round the 
world, to the UN this could have an impact.

>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.

IMHO let forget the DoC level as too near from us and too complex for the 
public. Our focus - and we might have competence and outreach - should be 
e-human rights, mani pulite, financial, lingual and digital divide, equal 
rights for all? This words have a meaning for the world as well as for us.

>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.

The real concern of magnitude that surfaces from the ICP-4 Security and 
Network Stability at the present stage is the software threat and 
essentially immediately "dons" - denials of name services. The only 
response to that is to take a defensive lead on the distributed protected 
user architecture we need anyway urgently for our development, before 
destabilization occurs on a real scale (I am very seriously concerned by 
Somalia). Pleading for that is in direct line with the MdR meeting. It 
certainly can attract the attention of Governements.

Deploying the East Coast 6 servers elesewhere is complex and worrying. 
Giving people hope in explaining them why they will not need the root 
system anymore is simple, calming and the best way to defuse the threat of 
an agressive usage of the concept.

>Various moptions, pleas, and other arguments have been presented to both the
>DNSO/NC and the ICANN/BoD. Thus far, there has been minimal response and
>even that has been in the wrong direction. It is time to prepare arguments
>with the US Department of Commerce, whilst at the same time, trying to get a
>Congress-critter involved.

Roeland, don't you think that the BoD and the NC are not just obeying the 
DoC desires? I may obviously be wrong, but don't you think that Joe Sims, 
Mike Roberts, Louis Touton ... have not enough the experience of these 
people not to have built the ICANN as precisely a compromise between DoC's 
expectations and what they consider as realistic and we know oudated?

I am afraid that the only way you can make things moving is in getting 
real. Anyone having shared in the ICANN dream or nightmaere is too much 
committed to it to see the absurdity of all this. Yourself you want to quit 
and now you want to document, bargain, explain....

Forget about it. Don't go to people you want to convince. Go to people you 
will never convince that such a thing as absurd as the ICANN may actually 
exist. There you will get some result.

Look at Eric. A few times ago he was still defending the rights of the 
Vitenamese kids. Wantingto change the GA because of them. Now he wants to 
get them on the GA. You will never convince the DoC, but you will only risk 
to convince yourself you became someone important because you discuss with 
them.

Again, I repeat my suggestion is that under the duress we start voting 
seriously abody of positions. This will made us to understand what we will 
vote about - there are enough competences in here - and build serious 
doctrines over governance and naming management. It is up to us to create 
an image of the GA in the press, in the foreign Govs, in the community. The 
ICANN is of no real interest: what is of interest is the forum it gives us.

Roberto had united us. Danny has pushed things. But obviously he has not 
pushed us. Not his trick. OK, he has other talents. Now we have to chose a 
new Chair. Let try finding someone able to make us debate and consolidate. 
With the GA as an agenda.

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: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:23:54 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

Danny,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. My comments are interspersed below.
Hopefully this is the beginning of a dialogue that intelligently looks at
the root causes of some of the problems that you have identified and assists
the GA in fulfilling a more meaningful role within the DNSO.

> If I may ask a question... you speak of rough consensus and running code.
> The GA has already arrived at consensus regarding the need to immediately
> establish an individuals constituency and the need to restructure the
DNSO.
> Now that such determinations have been made by this Assembly, how would
your
> running code analogy bring these propositions to fruition?

I'm pretty sure that you are not going to like this answer, but its an
honest one, so here goes. As an interested observer, I have not valued a
determination of consensus coming from the GA for quite some time. There are
almost 1000 people that subscribe to the GA mailing list and 454 registered
members of the GA. I see neither the participation nor the support of a vast
number of these people for the resolutions or positions coming out of the
GA. You touched on this on your post of July 8th of this year in which you
indicated that "From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to the main GA
list by 62 individuals. Six people accounted for half of all the posts."
Unless you are imply that these 62 individuals are somehow representative of
the other 454, it cannot be legitimately argued that the GA can achieve
consensus on any issue. I submit that the GA needs to undertake a lot of
work, very similar to what the Registrar Constituency is undertaking
actually, that lays the necessary foundation for productive, meaningful
work. This means process, identity, goals, outreach and much more. I don't
see this work being done.

Unless the GA gets its house in order, the GA will continue to suffer. As I
mentioned in a recent letter to the Registrar Constituency, it is time for
the cooks to regain control of the kitchen. I submit that this holds true fo
r the GA as well.

>
> There is no value in arriving at consensus just for the sake of stating
that
> we have arrived at consensus.  The Non-Com's routinely arrive at consensus
> within their constituency and present resolutions at every plenary
session.
> It gets them nowhere, as they are ignored by both the Council and the
Board,
> as is the GA.
>
> You argue that "I haven't heard anyone state that individuals don't need
> meaningful representation within ICANN".  That may be true, but no
> constituency other than the non-coms has gone on record as actually
> supporting an individuals constituency (and that includes your
constituency).

I can't speak for my constituency nor others, but I can say that there are a
lot of things that the registrars don't currently have a position on. This
cannot continue and as such, is one of my higher priority goals for the
coming year. Lack of position does not indicate lack of interest however. I
have great hope that our team can get to the point very quickly where our
collective views on this very important issue (and others) are formally
presented for discussion.

>  Has any constituency articulated that they believe in the principle
> articulated by both the ALSC and the Board that representation must
accompany
> participation?  If so, they would be arguing for representational rights
for
> the GA that enjoys no voting power within the DNSO.
>
> Instead a concerted effort has been made to both deny representative
rights
> to individuals and to prevent GA members from fully participating in the
> substantive work of the DNSO.  Open working groups do not exist under the
> current Council regime.   Tell me how your running code attends to these
> issues.

Until the GA gets to the point where it is organized and focused enough to
be taken seriously, it won't be. Exchanges such as the one that I saw
yesterday do not contribute positively to this effort and, at the very
least, should not be socially encouraged or implicitly endorsed.

- -rwr

- --
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 12:56:03 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

Ross, 

If we were to use your argument that "Unless you are imply that these 62 
individuals are somehow representative of the other 454, it cannot be 
legitimately argued that the GA can achieve consensus on any issue", then 
your own constituency finds itself in a conundrum...

You recently voted on the transfers protocol, an issue in which some 40 
members voted out of the almost 200 registrars listed by ICANN (some 
accredited, some not).  Many in your organization seek to argue that this is 
the consensus position of the registrar community.  By your reasoning, the 
vote conducted by the registrars does not necessarily constitute consensus in 
view of the limited turnout... are you sure that you want to advance the 
argument along these lines?

Consensus can only be reasonably measured by taking into account the vote of 
those members actively choosing to participate in a vote.  Our members have 
voted.  The results speak for themselves.  We believe this to be measurable 
consensus.
- --
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 10:07:05 -0800 
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Final Review Task Force Report

Thank you David,

|> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:44 AM
|> 
|> On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:02:17 -0800 (PST), Rick H Wesson
|> <[email-masked]> wrote:
|> 
|> >On the issue of monies, the GA can do what every other DNSO 
|> constituency
|> >does:
|> 
|> Actually it is not that simple.
|> 
|> >   o find someone you trust
|> >   o have that person open a trust account
|> >   o elect officers (chair, co-chair, and treasurer)
|> 
|> The NC appoints our chair under ICANN bylaws.  We have no power of
|> general competence to elect officers.

This also points out what I stated earlier, the GA is intentionally kept
broke. Any monies donated go directly to ICANN, whom doesn't see a reason to
fund the DNSO. In fact, it requires the DNSO to help fund the ICANN. Exactly
backwards but, it serves to keep the DNSO broke and prevent funding of damn
near anything DNSO.

|> >   o levy dues
|> 
|> Unlike constituencies we have no ability to levy dues and/or remove
|> people for non payment.  Our role is defined in the ICANN bylaws.

Any funds raised in such a manner become the property and are under the
management of, the ICANN. ICANN BoD chooses where to distribute such fund.
If any go to the DNSO, the NC then decides where, in the DNSO, such monies
are to be spent. The GA doesn't even make the second list. Given the
track-record of the NC wrt the GA, what do you think?

|> >There is nothing preventing the GA from doing the above.
|> 
|> The ICANN bylaws do.  
|> 
|> A group of individuals could do the above but that would not be the
|> same as the GA doing it.

That is exactly what I am proposing, a group of individuals.
- --
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 10:16:42 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 12:56:03PM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> Ross, 
> 
> If we were to use your argument that "Unless you are imply that these 62 
> individuals are somehow representative of the other 454, it cannot be 
> legitimately argued that the GA can achieve consensus on any issue", then 
> your own constituency finds itself in a conundrum...
> 
> You recently voted on the transfers protocol, an issue in which some 40 
> members voted out of the almost 200 registrars listed by ICANN (some 
> accredited, some not).  Many in your organization seek to argue that this is 
> the consensus position of the registrar community.  By your reasoning, the 
> vote conducted by the registrars does not necessarily constitute consensus in 
> view of the limited turnout... are you sure that you want to advance the 
> argument along these lines?
> 
> Consensus can only be reasonably measured by taking into account the vote of 
> those members actively choosing to participate in a vote.  Our members have 
> voted.  The results speak for themselves.  We believe this to be measurable 
> consensus.

Sorry, there is a vast difference -- the character of the organization
matters a great deal.  If an organization is effective, and people pay
attention to it (like the registrar constituency), then the assumption
that people who disagree will speak up is, for the most part, a valid
one.  

The GA, however, is a zoo, and nobody takes it seriously.  Since people
don't take it seriously, there is no particular reason to speak up if it
takes an insane or wildly unrealistic position, and hence the assumption
that the people who do speak up are a consensus is clearly invalid. 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 13:21:37 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: NC Review Task Force -- Captured by Business Interests ??

> If we were to use your argument that "Unless you are imply that these 62
> individuals are somehow representative of the other 454, it cannot be
> legitimately argued that the GA can achieve consensus on any issue", then
> your own constituency finds itself in a conundrum...
>
> You recently voted on the transfers protocol, an issue in which some 40
> members voted out of the almost 200 registrars listed by ICANN (some
> accredited, some not).  Many in your organization seek to argue that this
is
> the consensus position of the registrar community.  By your reasoning, the
> vote conducted by the registrars does not necessarily constitute consensus
in
> view of the limited turnout... are you sure that you want to advance the
> argument along these lines?

You forget that the Registrar Constituency is membership based, as is the
GA. There are, I believe, roughly 50 or so members of the constituency
(higher, I believe, than what it was during the vote you reference). While
this vote was open to all 120 or so accredited registrars, regardless of
membership status, we can only move this issue forward based on the wishes
and interests of the constituency members. The vote was very clear in this
regard - all registrars save one supported the motion on the floor at the
time.

>
> Consensus can only be reasonably measured by taking into account the vote
of
> those members actively choosing to participate in a vote.  Our members
have
> voted.  The results speak for themselves.  We believe this to be
measurable
> consensus.

There is a tremendous difference between the majority of voters (your
current methods) and the consensus will of the membership (the requisite
method). The fact that the voter turn-out is low indicates that there is are
reasons why people aren't voting. Get to the bottom of this and you will be
a long way towards making the GA a stronger entity.

- -rwr

- --
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 13:39:47 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Data requested from the Secretariat

Dear Glen,

Please cross-reference the voting registry of the DNSO against the subscriber 
list of the GA so that we may know how many registered voters are currently 
subscribed to the GA list.

Thank you,
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: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:50:13 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] BC Charter -- latest proposed revisions

Draft BC charter revision version B 2

List of Articles
1. Background
2. Mission statement
3. Principles
4. Membership
5. Structure
6. Elections
7. Issue management
8. Consensus building
9. Membership fees
 
1.  Background 
This document is the rules of procedure or charter for the Commercial and 
Business Entities Constituency of the Domain Name Supporting Organization 
(DNSO) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 
California, USA, hereafter the Business Constituency or the Constituency.  
The Business Constituency is that entity referred to in Article VI-b, Section 
3 of the ICANN bylaws.

2. Mission Statement
The mission of the Business Constituency is to ensure that:
- -   the Constituency fully represents the views of the Internet business user 
community,
- -   ICANN policy positions are consistent with the development of business 
via an Internet that is stable, secure and reliable while promoting consumer 
confidence.

3. Principles
The members of the Business Constituency endorse certain principles. 

1.  The stability, security and reliability of the Internet.
2.  The management of Internet names and numbers by an international 
not-for-profit private sector led entity - ICANN.
3.  The mandatory application by all generic top-level domain registries and 
registrars of existing and future ICANN consensus policies.
4.  Bottom-up policy development within the DNSO - a common forum for 
suppliers and users.

4. Membership
Members of the Business Constituency use the Internet to conduct business. 
The Business Constituency is a constituency representing customers of 
providers of connectivity, domain names, IP addresses, protocols and other 
services related to electronic commerce in its broad sense. 

1. The following may become members of the Business Constituency: 
- - Subject to 4.2, any legally recognised for-profit entity that has been 
delegated a domain and that uses the Internet to conduct for-profit business.

- - Subject to 4.2, any organization such as a trade association representing 
such entities. 

2 In keeping with the selective membership criteria of other DNSO 
constituencies, the Business Constituency represents the interests of a 
specific sector of Internet users. The purpose of the Constituency is to 
represent the interests of businesses using the Internet for, in its broad 
sense, electronic commerce with customers. 

To avoid conflicts of interest, this typically excludes for-profit entities 
whose primary relationship with ICANN is as a domain name service provider, 
such as a registry or registrar, as well as from other groups whose interests 
may not be aligned with business users. Such entities may find other 
constituencies offer more appropriate means of representing their members' 
interests.

Applicants will be asked to endorse the Constituency's Principles (article 3) 
as a condition of membership. 

3. All membership applications will be reviewed by a Credentials Committee 
which shall comprise at least three paid-up members of the Constituency, 
appointed by the Officers (as defined in 5.2) for a term of up to two years, 
with re-appointments possible. In the event of any appeal the Credentials 
Committee will take all reasonable measures to establish the facts of the 
appeal, review these facts and the final decision will be certified by the 
Officers.

4. Once approved by the Credential Committee an applicant must settle 
membership fees quickly in order to participate in the Constituency. An 
applicant who fails to settle fees within three months of approval, at the 
discretion of the Officers, may be asked to re-apply.

5. A member shall designate one representative as the principle point of 
contact and for voting. That person is the only person ordinarily able to 
vote on behalf of the member. The designated representative must be either a 
director or employee of that member but not an affiliate or connected 
undertaking. As association member will ordinarily designate a staff member 
as its representative but may choose to designate a director or employee of 
one of its member companies, subject to annual notification.

A member may also appoint a voting proxy for a specific meeting of the 
Constituency. The proxy must fulfil the conditions above for the designated 
representative or be another member's designated representative to the  
Business Constituency. Notification of a proxy must be made in writing to the 
secretariat 48 hours before the start of the meeting.

6. A member, who over a sustained period of time acts in conflict to this 
Charter, or who engages in acts which appear to be inappropriate for the 
stability, functionality or bona fide reputation of the Constituency, or who 
is or threatens to be a vexatious litigant,  at the request of another 
paid-up member and following review by the Officers and the Credentials 
Committee, may have their membership terminated and pro-rata fees returned, 
less any expenses incurred in the administration of the complaint, at the 
full discretion of the Officers and the Credentials Committee.

5. Structure

1. Names Council representatives
Three paid-up members shall be elected by members as Names Council 
representatives to serve a two-year term. They will act in the Names Council 
as representatives of and spokespersons for the Constituency and will 
collaborate with other members of the Names Council in pursuit of the mission 
of the Constituency.  

In order to assure geographical diversity, no two Names Council 
representatives may be citizens of the same geographic region as defined from 
time to time within the ICANN bylaws. For information purposes there were 
five such regions in 2001: Europe; Asia/Australia/Pacific; Latin 
America/Caribbean Islands; Africa; North America.

The Constituency may appoint a member to fulfil the term of office of an 
elected Names Council representative following the resignation of the 
representative. In the event that a NC member resigns with more than six 
months remaining in his or her term, the Officers may consider holding an 
election.

2. Officers
The Names Council representatives shall be the Officers of the Constituency 
and fulfil the function of an executive committee. The Officers are tasked 
with fulfilling the Constituency mission via administrative supervision and 
co-ordination. The Officers will inter alia:
- - lead the consensus-building process in the Business Constituency; 
- - propose issues for Rapporteurs and task forces (see 7.1, 7.2); 
- - ensure notification of relevant ICANN or DNSO decisions to the Constituency;
- - chair BC meetings;
- - within two weeks of their election confirm appointments to any committees,  
task forces or other such representative roles and make any changes as 
appropriate;
- - select, and oversee the work of, a secretariat.
- - delegate to a moderator, typically the secretariat, the administration of a 
policy for Constituency e-mail lists.

3. Secretariat
There shall be a professional secretariat responsible for the day to day 
running of the Constituency. Typically the following services, which may be 
changed by the Officers from time to time, will be provided by the 
secretariat:
- -   web site hosting, design and updating
- -   an e-mail list of members
- -   membership fee administration and financial reporting
- -   co-ordination of physical and telephone meetings.

6. Elections 
1. The election process will be initiated by a nomination period of one week. 
Any paid-up member of the Business Constituency may nominate one person. This 
process (including receiving nominations, communicating nominations and 
publishing an overview of results) will be initiated and managed by the 
secretariat. 

2. Immediately following the nomination period, the secretariat will open an 
election period of one week, during which it will receive votes from members 
of the Constituency electronically, typically via e-mail. 

3. The winner(s) will be candidates receiving the largest number of votes.

4. In case of a tie a new election will be held among the nominees in the tie.

5. Depending on category BC members have 3, 2 or 1 vote(s). Votes are cast as 
a block and are not divisible. The secretariat will allocate votes cast 
according to category (as defined in article 9).

6. Proxy votes are allowed subject to written notification to the secretariat 
by the designated representative of the member after the nomination period 
and before the start of the voting period and subject to the proxy conditions 
of article 4.5.

7. Votes shall be counted and elimination made as follows. 
Elimination 1: upon the completion of the initial ballot, all other nominees 
from the same region as the person with the largest number of votes will be 
eliminated and that person is elected.
Elimination 2: from the resulting list, all other nominees from the same 
region as the person with the largest number of votes in that new list will 
be eliminated and that person is elected. 
Elimination 3: from the resulting list the remaining eligible votes will be 
counted and the person with the largest number of votes in that new list is 
elected.

7. Issue management
1. From time to time the Officers shall appoint members as Rapporteurs (issue 
managers) to develop positions on relevant issues. This role involves 
drafting and consultation with the members and the officers.  

2. From time to time the Officers shall set up committees or task forces to 
initiate positions on relevant issues or for membership sub-sets. 

3. Wherever possible the Constituency will produce written positions on 
relevant issues. 

8. Consensus Building
The following procedure shall be used for developing written positions.

1. Authorship.
The relevant Constituency working group Rapporteur will typically be 
responsible for preparing a first draft of a Business Constituency position 
or other paper and thereafter co-ordinating comments. However, any paid-up 
member of the Constituency is entitled to propose a position paper and, if 
there is sufficient support, be asked by the Officers to take on this role.  

2. Consultation and approval where there is no disagreement.
The draft position will be circulated for comment or posted on the web site. 
Members will be notified that there will be a ten working days' period for 
comment. If no comments are received the position will be deemed approved.  

3. Approval where there is initial significant disagreement.
Members who seek changes to a draft should submit proposed language in 
writing. If there are at least 3 members who oppose a position a mechanism to 
discuss the issue will be provided by the Rapporteur with the assistance of 
the Officers. This may be an e-mail discussion, a conference call or 
discussion at a physical meeting. If the majority of discussion members 
support the draft position, the position will be deemed approved.

4. Approval where there is continued disagreement.
Where the conference call or meeting indicates a split in the Constituency of 
more than 10% of the number of paid-up members, there will then be a vote 
(typically by e-mail) on the position. Only the designated representatives of 
members will be eligible to vote. Proxy votes are allowed subject to written 
notification to the secretariat by the designated representative of the 
member before the start of the voting period and subject to the proxy 
conditions of section 4.5.  Only members who have settled their fees will be 
eligible to vote. 

A position paper which has the support of at least a simple majority of 51% 
of the eligible votes in favour will be deemed adopted by the Constituency so 
long as the total number of members voting represents not less than a quorum 
of 51% of paid-up members. Where a quorum is not reached the Officers will 
decide whether a re-vote, re-thinking or publication of a minority position 
is required and the process will then repeat as appropriate. 

5. Solidarity.
When speaking as a BC member, members shall remain faithful to approved 
positions and the Constituency representatives to the Names Council will be 
required to support such positions en bloc.

6. Updates
From time to time updates may be needed to position papers. The Officers at 
that time will appoint a rapporteur to draft a revision and the procedure 
above will be followed.

9. Membership Fees
The Business Constituency has the right to require membership fees. These 
shall be set by the Officers following consultation with the members from 
time to time in accordance with sound financial management, including an 
option of group membership schemes, and fall into three categories of 
declining price and voting eligibility.
Category 1: companies (which are not micro enterprises) and associations 
spanning more than one ICANN region - 3 votes.
Category 2: an association spanning one ICANN region - 2 votes.
Category 3: Micro enterprises defined as companies which can demonstrate both 
less than 10 employees and a turnover of less than Euro 0.5 million - 1 vote. 

The Constituency's membership year is a calendar year. Members will be 
invoiced annually for fees. A member joining during the first six months of 
the year will be invoiced for that year at a monthly pro-rata. A member 
joining during the last six months of the year will be invoiced for the 
current year at a monthly pro-rata plus one full year for the following year. 
A member not paying a renewal demand shall lose all rights and benefits of 
membership on the 14th day following the date on which the second reminder 
invoice is due.

{This first revised charter was presented for review on 19 November 2001; 
comments from the Constituency were taken until 30 November 2001, a revised 
draft is presented for comment until December 14 and a final charter will be 
presented for affirmation in December.  The final revised charter will become 
effective immediately afterwards.}
- --
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 22:25:28 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] To make the GA something worth and to take into account

Dear Fellow GA,
I understand that there is some sort of consensus to correct the GA 
situation. Here is a plan I propose to that end.

1. to nominate and elect a Chair wanting to be a debate and resolution 
peaceful catalyst.
2. to look for/develop and implement a motion management system
3. to set-up a list of topics we want to debate seriously in listing the 
matters that Members want to see addressed without any exclusive.
4. to set-up a GA web site where each debated matter has a page showing the 
position links of the people wanting to participate to a public consensus 
writing. Each position link links a page by a contributor expressing his 
position that everyone may read and comment. The target is that 
progressively positions may converge and resolve into consensual position 
of agreement or of disagreement clear description.
5. to incorporate the ICANN GA as a non profit "ICANN user association". 
The target is not to compete with the @large as the Internet Global 
Community, but as a important member of  ICANN community.

Such an organization could be used as a permanent secretariat for the GA 
Members:
6. to develop relations with other governance centers and to interface with 
Staff and BoD.
7. to develop formal relations with the Consistencies he Members of which 
as GA Members
8. to establish information channels with DoC, Congress and White House in 
the USA and their counter parts in the other countries.
9. to carry an outreach program mainly oriented towards diversity in 
concerns and origins and towards consumer organizations
10. to serve as a watch dog assembly concerning corruption and decisions 
increasing the financial, the lingual and the digital divide on the Internet.

We would expect this to foster:
- - a common feeling of responsibility towards the governance and to the 
world as far as the ICANN is concerned. Supporting what is good, reporting 
on what is wrong, proposing solutions.
- - a common maturity through serious debate on serious matters resulting 
into published votes.
- - a body of consensual positions or clearly worded oppositions for the 
benefit of the other ICANN units and of the public and the media.

This has a cost. So we need money. This money will never reach us if we do 
not have a banking account, that is if we are not incorporated. My 
proposition for getting that money is that this ICANN user association 
sponsors Internet governance related propositions and in the meanwhile gets 
some donations and accepts mutual help. Running as site is not a big expense!

Such propositions could be:
- - sponsoring a newspaper per country who would report on the GA and publish 
its positions
- - sponsoring a yearly Internet meeting/Trade show and an Internet solutions 
portal
- - sponsoring local training program where Member could participate
- - sponsoring the publication of documents and books on the Internet
- - tags, teashirts, etc...
This just to show that this is possible.

This idea is: we are 1000 with a very precise interest: a good service of 
the ICANN to the public. There is no reason we cannot succeed in obtaining 
it and in becoming a serious and usefull institution.

My 2 cents.
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: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:32:06 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: .aero reconsideration request

>Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 09:32:46 -0800
>From: Edward Hasbrouck <[email-masked]>
>Subject: .aero reconsideration request
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Bcc: (Suppressed)
>Reply-to: [email-masked]
>Organization: The Practical Nomad
>X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.01)
>Priority: normal
>
>This morning I submitted a request to ICANN for reconsideration of the
>.aero sponsorship agreement with SITA.  My request and all supporting
>documents are at: <http://hasbrouck.org/icann/reconsider.html>
>
>My reconsideration request concerns the changes made (during secret
>negotiations between ICANN and SITA) to the policies in the original
>proposal for .aero, and the manner in which those changes were made
>(without openness, transparency, consultation of relevant stakeholders or
>constituencies, consensus building, or a public forum by the Board).
>
>If these changes are accepted, *most* of those who would have been
>eligible to register aero domains under the original proposal would be
>excluded.  And SITA would be allowed to renege on its commitment in the
>proposal to establish an open, representative, policy-making board to
>ensure that .aero is operated for the benefit of all stakeholders.
>
>Since they directly concern the failure to consult the DNSO when policy is
>being decided on matters relevant to the DNSO, I invite and encourage the
>DNSO to intervene in support of my request for reconsideration and my
>request that Mr. Lynn not sign the .aero agreement until my request for a
>stay can be considered by the Reconsideration Committee.
>
>Peace,
>
>Edward Hasbrouck
>----------------
>Edward Hasbrouck
><[email-masked]>
><http://hasbrouck.org>
>
>"The Practical Nomad Guide to the Online Travel Marketplace"
><http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566912504/edwardhasbro>
>"The Practical Nomad: How to Travel Around the World"
><http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566912148/edwardhasbro>

- --
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 #904
************************