Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #917
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, December 12 2001         Volume 01 : Number 917

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 03:54:58 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSO GA Nominations for election - Attn Kristy!

All assembly members,

  Please think about someone you would like to see as a candidate
and nominate them.  It is important to you as an GA member, and
to the rest of the GA members collectively.  We need more than two
good candidates.

  Dear Kristy, I am happy that you were nominated.  Someone
beat me to it!  I think you make an excellent non bias candidate
for the DNSO GA Chair.  I can only hope that Eric's efforts
will be fruitful in gaining funding for at least the GA Chair
and the expenses for that position.

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: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 07:30:52 -0500
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire.

From: "Katrina Burchell" <[email-masked]>

> I think we should start to discuss how we are going to analyse the answers
> between us

Given the composition of this group, and the level of familiarity and
perspectives on various aspects of the Policy among us, I would expect that
the results would be viewed through the lenses of our experiences.
Otherwise, the group would preferably be composed of persons unfamiliar with
the policy.

If the results indicate clear recurring themes, criticisms or proposals, then
such matters would merit more discussion than other issues where there is no
apparent dissension.  Obviously we don't need to discuss things about which
we all agree, but one hopes that lively, or even passionate, disagreement is
something we are equipped to deal with.  Uniformity of opinions may be
pleasant, but it is also dull and unproductive.

Irreconcilable differences can be resolved with pistols at dawn where
necessary.  There is a contingent among the Task Force which has announced
its discontinuation of participation in administration of the Policy, and
fired a rather public parting shot at the manner in which the Policy is
administered (the ammunition appears to have been "sour grape shot").  One
wonders about the value of future recommendations on the part of those who
have no future plans to participate in the results.  On the other hand, such
recommendations might be considered to be more "objective" since they are
based on experience and obviously not attributable to a present pecuniary
interest.

- --
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, 11 Dec 2001 10:14:58 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire.

John and all assembly members,

  I agree with most of your comments below here John.  It would seem
that concentration on the areas of disagreement in the language, structure
and policies of the current WIPO/ICANN UDRP would be much
more fruitful, although I am quite sure the discussion would be also
very spirited if not down right ugly from some sectors of interest.
None the less these are the areas that desperately need to be revised,
or the perception seems to be so given recent court decisions both
in the US and elsewhere.

  Given the current and I would contend long standing misconception
of the ecommerce as well as Domain Name registration practice and
past policy, the ICANN/WIPO UDRP is not, and has not adequately
addressed any of the concerns of registrants adequately, fairly or
even amicably.  The courts are beginning to see this much more
clearly, but always have had problems with the present ICANN/WIPO
UDRP.  The other structural problem that will no doubt raise it's ugly head
will be the Registration Contract for Registrar Accreditation by ICANN
if or when the present UDRP is redone or modified precipitously.

  Therefore it is our opinion that a Joint WG consisting of all of the
Constituencies, the DNSO GA and the ICANN Staff should be
put together with a time window adequate enough to make some
serious recommendations, outside of the WIPO sphere of influence.
Perhaps one GAC member should be in this WG as well.  In any
event and open forum for such a WG should be provided where
all of the discussions and debates can be hashed out.

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> From: "Katrina Burchell" <[email-masked]>
>
> > I think we should start to discuss how we are going to analyse the answers
> > between us
>
> Given the composition of this group, and the level of familiarity and
> perspectives on various aspects of the Policy among us, I would expect that
> the results would be viewed through the lenses of our experiences.
> Otherwise, the group would preferably be composed of persons unfamiliar with
> the policy.
>
> If the results indicate clear recurring themes, criticisms or proposals, then
> such matters would merit more discussion than other issues where there is no
> apparent dissension.  Obviously we don't need to discuss things about which
> we all agree, but one hopes that lively, or even passionate, disagreement is
> something we are equipped to deal with.  Uniformity of opinions may be
> pleasant, but it is also dull and unproductive.
>
> Irreconcilable differences can be resolved with pistols at dawn where
> necessary.  There is a contingent among the Task Force which has announced
> its discontinuation of participation in administration of the Policy, and
> fired a rather public parting shot at the manner in which the Policy is
> administered (the ammunition appears to have been "sour grape shot").  One
> wonders about the value of future recommendations on the part of those who
> have no future plans to participate in the results.  On the other hand, such
> recommendations might be considered to be more "objective" since they are
> based on experience and obviously not attributable to a present pecuniary
> interest.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:15:30 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

On 2001-12-11 11:34:12 -0500, [email-masked] wrote to the DNSO 
secretariat:

>On December 5, I announced my resignation from the transfers task 
>force and asked members of the GA to indicate whether they had an 
>interest in the position.  It was stated that elections would 
>begin after a week's time. During the course of this week three 
>individuals have expressed their interest in this position: Jeff 
>Williams, Thomas Roessler, and Eric Dierker.

>Please begin an election.

>The winner will become the GA's representative to the Task Force. 
>The next runner-up will become an official non-voting observer to 
>the Task Force.  The last-place candidate will become an observer 
>if and only if the Task Force expands the number of allotted 
>observers (which has not yet happened, but which is a 
>possibility).

I OBJECT.

Danny: In the message announcing your resignation from your TF seat, 
there was not a single word on eventual observers being sent to the 
Task Force.  The only assumption one could derive from that message 
is that a SINGLE representative to the Task Force will be elected by 
the GA.

For this reason, the question how many observers shall be sent to 
the Transfers Task Force MUST either itself be subject to a vote of 
the members of the GA, or the GA MUST NOT send any GA observers to 
the TF. The runner-ups MUST NOT automatically become observers on 
the Task Force, just by an oukas of the GA's chair.

Quite frankly, I am NOT going to serve on the Transfer Task Force on 
the basis of an election which places me on that Task Force together 
with either Jeff Williams or Eric Dierker - be it due to the vote's 
outcome, or be it due to the way the ballot is prepared.

A GA which (either by vote or by action of its chair) places any of 
these two individuals on any task force as its representative or as 
an observer does not deserve ANY kind of representation in the ICANN 
consensus process.

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:01:27 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

At 06:15 PM 12/11/2001 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2001-12-11 11:34:12 -0500, [email-masked] wrote to the DNSO
>secretariat:
>
> >On December 5, I announced my resignation from the transfers task
> >force and asked members of the GA to indicate whether they had an
> >interest in the position.  It was stated that elections would
> >begin after a week's time. During the course of this week three
> >individuals have expressed their interest in this position: Jeff
> >Williams, Thomas Roessler, and Eric Dierker.
>
> >Please begin an election.
>
> >The winner will become the GA's representative to the Task Force.
> >The next runner-up will become an official non-voting observer to
> >the Task Force.  The last-place candidate will become an observer
> >if and only if the Task Force expands the number of allotted
> >observers (which has not yet happened, but which is a
> >possibility).
>
>I OBJECT.
>
>Danny: In the message announcing your resignation from your TF seat,
>there was not a single word on eventual observers being sent to the
>Task Force.  The only assumption one could derive from that message
>is that a SINGLE representative to the Task Force will be elected by
>the GA.
>
>For this reason, the question how many observers shall be sent to
>the Transfers Task Force MUST either itself be subject to a vote of
>the members of the GA, or the GA MUST NOT send any GA observers to
>the TF. The runner-ups MUST NOT automatically become observers on
>the Task Force, just by an oukas of the GA's chair.
>
>
>
>Quite frankly, I am NOT going to serve on the Transfer Task Force on
>the basis of an election which places me on that Task Force together
>with either Jeff Williams or Eric Dierker - be it due to the vote's
>outcome, or be it due to the way the ballot is prepared.
>
>A GA which (either by vote or by action of its chair) places any of
>these two individuals on any task force as its representative or as
>an observer does not deserve ANY kind of representation in the ICANN
>consensus process.
>
>--
>Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Thomas,

Why will you not "serve on the Transfer Task Force on
the basis of an election which places me on that Task Force together
with either Jeff Williams or Eric Dierker - be it due to the vote's
outcome, or be it due to the way the ballot is prepared"?

Please, be specific.

Thank you,

~k

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 15:39:22 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

At 06:15 PM 12/11/2001 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>I OBJECT.
>Danny: In the message announcing your resignation from your TF seat,
>there was not a single word on eventual observers being sent to the
>Task Force.  The only assumption one could derive from that message
>is that a SINGLE representative to the Task Force will be elected by
>the GA.
>For this reason, the question how many observers shall be sent to
>the Transfers Task Force MUST either itself be subject to a vote of
>the members of the GA, or the GA MUST NOT send any GA observers to
>the TF. The runner-ups MUST NOT automatically become observers on
>the Task Force, just by an oukas of the GA's chair.

         I think that Thomas's objection is well taken.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

- --
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, 11 Dec 2001 15:15:54 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

At 03:39 PM 12/11/2001 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>At 06:15 PM 12/11/2001 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>>I OBJECT.
>>Danny: In the message announcing your resignation from your TF seat,
>>there was not a single word on eventual observers being sent to the
>>Task Force.  The only assumption one could derive from that message
>>is that a SINGLE representative to the Task Force will be elected by
>>the GA.
>>For this reason, the question how many observers shall be sent to
>>the Transfers Task Force MUST either itself be subject to a vote of
>>the members of the GA, or the GA MUST NOT send any GA observers to
>>the TF. The runner-ups MUST NOT automatically become observers on
>>the Task Force, just by an oukas of the GA's chair.
>
>
>         I think that Thomas's objection is well taken.
>
>Jon
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>[email-masked]
>
>--
>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

Jon,

Please explain yourself.
I do not understand Thomas's objection and seems to not be willihng or 
possible able to articulate it to me.

~k

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:24:59 +0100
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

On 11 Dec 2001, at 15:39, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> At 06:15 PM 12/11/2001 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >I OBJECT.
> >Danny: In the message announcing your resignation from your TF seat,
> >there was not a single word on eventual observers being sent to the
> >Task Force.  The only assumption one could derive from that message
> >is that a SINGLE representative to the Task Force will be elected by
> >the GA.
> >For this reason, the question how many observers shall be sent to
> >the Transfers Task Force MUST either itself be subject to a vote of
> >the members of the GA, or the GA MUST NOT send any GA observers to
> >the TF. The runner-ups MUST NOT automatically become observers on
> >the Task Force, just by an oukas of the GA's chair.
> 
> 
>          I think that Thomas's objection is well taken.

I also agree with Thomas and would, if necessary, want to vote about the question of 
observers. 

jeanette
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> [email-masked]
> 
> --
> 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, 11 Dec 2001 22:39:02 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

On 2001-12-11 15:15:54 -0600, Kristy McKee wrote:

>I do not understand Thomas's objection and seems to not be 
>willihng or possible able to articulate it to me.

First of all, it's getting late in my time zone.

Second, I usually don't respond to individuals who send me "F**k You 
Too" notes via private e-mail half an hour before asking questions 
in public.

Third, I consider Jeff Williams and Eric Dierker unsuitable and 
unable to serve on any Names Council task force (or the like).  I'm 
sure that any attempt to work together with any one of them in order 
to represent the GA in a meaningful and coherent way would require 
an awful lot of time and effort, and would ultimately be futile.  I 
prefer not to waste my time on obviously futile efforts. Also (as I 
pointed out in my original message), I'd have to reconsider whether 
or not I want to represent this GA in the case that Eric or Jeff 
would be sent to the Task Force.  Because, in this case, the GA's 
collective and my personal idea of what constitutes good judgement 
would obviously be in complete contradiction.

Fourth, the part of my message Jon was referring to concerned 
procedural issues: In Danny's original message which called for 
candidates, there was no mention at all of any observers being sent 
to the TF on behalf of the GA. I, for instance, have declared my 
interest based on the expectation that I'd represent the GA alone, 
or not at all.

If I had known that runner-ups are expected to be sent to the TF, 
too, I'd either have tried to make sure that there are other 
candidates I find suitable for the task force, or I'd have refrained 
 from a candidature.

This kind of change of rules is inappropriate at this point of time 
(i.e., when the election is almost started).  Instead of changing 
the meaning of a candidature and a vote at this point of time, the 
GA membership should either be given an opportunity to decide on 
this question by vote, too, or the vote should happen by the rules 
which were to be expected from Danny's original announcement.

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:44:19 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

The General Assembly will be electing a single "voting" representative to the 
Transfers Task Force.

This Task Force, as per an un-ratified proposal tendered by the un-elected 
interim Chair, will determine whether constituencies and the GA may send 
additional non-voting "observers" to this TF.  That particular message was 
posted to the TF list on the same day that I tendered my resignation from the 
TF, and has subsequently been repeated on the TF list.  

I consider it entirely appropriate that those that have expressed an interest 
in participating in this TF be given the fair opportunity to participate, and 
have therefore asked the Secretariat to designate the runners-up in this 
election as such "observers" (recognizing that no other GA members have 
expressed any interest in working on this TF and understanding that the 
number of future TF participants must ultimately be decided by the TF 
membership itself). 

Had this been an open working group, all members of the GA would have had an 
equal opportunity to participate.  Accordingly, I will not seek to deny 
participation to the only GA members that have thus far expressed any 
interest or desire in working on this TF.

Allow me to remind the membership that the General Assembly is "open to all 
who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO. The 
participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge of and an 
interest in issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary 
responsibility, and who are willing to contribute time, effort and expertise 
to the work of the DNSO, including work item proposal and development, 
discussion of work items, draft document preparation, and participation in 
research and drafting committees and working groups."

Jeff Williams, Thomas Roessler and Eric Dierker have an equal right as 
participants as they are all General Assembly members.  It is up to the 
membership to decide which candidate will best represent our interests as the 
voting member.  The runners-up in this election (having expressed a desire to 
participate in the work of the TF) will be accorded the opportunity to do so 
should such circumstance arise.  

Those that do not plan to get involved in the substantive work of the DNSO 
should allow those that are willing to do the work to get on with the job 
that they are volunteering to do.  Maybe next time, others will volunteer to 
actually do some work.

- --
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, 11 Dec 2001 13:58:39 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

I received the below spam at one of our domains today, interesting to
see that the alt.root .usa people are resorting to spam to advertise
their services.

Delivery-date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:46:45 -0800
Version 5.5.2653.13)
        id YLRYXCA6; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 06:53:04 +0900
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Subject: Latest Domain Name .USA! 95772
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 13:46:45 -0800

The latest domain name extension has arrived .USA!!!  It's the fresh, new,

exciting web address that is taking the world by storm.

Who wants to be .com when you can now be .USA 

Register your .USA domain name today exclusively at: 

http://www.dotusa.com

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

To be taken off the mailing list please click below:

http://195.224.231.236/unsubscribe.phtml

- --
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, 11 Dec 2001 14:02:43 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 1:15:54 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> Please explain yourself.
> I do not understand Thomas's objection and seems to not be willihng or 
> possible able to articulate it to me.

We know already that, while not being one yourself, you have always
been sympathetic and friendly towards the various net.kooks like
Fleming and JW.  But you know perfectly well what the objection is
about, and why it is a valid one.

- -- 
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, 11 Dec 2001 16:03:00 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Thank you for your response, Thomas,

I am sorry you would rather attack others than participate.

It is appropriate for you to withdraw and for you to not attempt to attain 
another position on any type of working group as they are all more likely 
to contain folks you will not want to associate with and you would need to 
work with them, not abuse them.  I am also very pleased that we chose to 
not permit you to join our List Monitor Committee as you have proven beyond 
reasonable doubt that you are not the person for the job.

~k

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:03:21 -0600
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

;)

At 02:02 PM 12/11/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 1:15:54 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > Please explain yourself.
> > I do not understand Thomas's objection and seems to not be willihng or
> > possible able to articulate it to me.
>
>We know already that, while not being one yourself, you have always
>been sympathetic and friendly towards the various net.kooks like
>Fleming and JW.  But you know perfectly well what the objection is
>about, and why it is a valid one.
>
>
>--
>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, 11 Dec 2001 14:12:04 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 2:03:00 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> Thank you for your response, Thomas,

> I am sorry you would rather attack others than participate.

> It is appropriate for you to withdraw and for you to not attempt to attain 
> another position on any type of working group as they are all more likely 
> to contain folks you will not want to associate with and you would need to 
> work with them, not abuse them.  I am also very pleased that we chose to 
> not permit you to join our List Monitor Committee as you have proven beyond 
> reasonable doubt that you are not the person for the job.

All I can say is that I'd rather have him than those who are so
sympathetic to the net.kooks that they continue to let them get away
with their little games here.

At least Harald did something about it when he was the moderator.

- -- 
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, 11 Dec 2001 23:42:45 +0100
From: "Glen De Saint Gery" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council teleconference 13 December tel. numbers

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

Please note the following information for the 
Names Council teleconference on Thursday 13 December 2001
- ------------------------------------------------------
TIME: 6.00 LA, 9:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 23:00 Tokyo, 1:00 (Friday)
Melbourne, 8.00 Mexico City, 14.00 London, 9.00 Toronto, 6.00 Vancouver
(For other times please see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

Dial in USA Toll Free number: 888-628-9518 (US number)
Dial in USA Toll number +1-712-271-3873

Passcode: Names Council
Conference Leader: Philip Sheppard

There will be 10 "listen in only ports" available

[ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011213.NCteleconf-agenda.html]

DNSO Secretariat

- --
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, 11 Dec 2001 14:46:59 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Oh give it up, Danny, you know you are only doing this since it serves
your purpose of trying to be as much a thorn in the side of the NC as
you can.

At least be honest about your reasons for doing it.

I bet a number on this list wished they had backed up my call for the
NC to replace you earlier this year.

Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 1:44:19 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> The General Assembly will be electing a single "voting" representative to the 
> Transfers Task Force.

> This Task Force, as per an un-ratified proposal tendered by the un-elected 
> interim Chair, will determine whether constituencies and the GA may send 
> additional non-voting "observers" to this TF.  That particular message was 
> posted to the TF list on the same day that I tendered my resignation from the 
> TF, and has subsequently been repeated on the TF list.  

> I consider it entirely appropriate that those that have expressed an interest 
> in participating in this TF be given the fair opportunity to participate, and 
> have therefore asked the Secretariat to designate the runners-up in this 
> election as such "observers" (recognizing that no other GA members have 
> expressed any interest in working on this TF and understanding that the 
> number of future TF participants must ultimately be decided by the TF 
> membership itself). 

> Had this been an open working group, all members of the GA would have had an 
> equal opportunity to participate.  Accordingly, I will not seek to deny 
> participation to the only GA members that have thus far expressed any 
> interest or desire in working on this TF.

> Allow me to remind the membership that the General Assembly is "open to all 
> who are willing to contribute effort to the work of the DNSO. The 
> participants in the GA should be individuals who have a knowledge of and an 
> interest in issues pertaining to the areas for which the DNSO has primary 
> responsibility, and who are willing to contribute time, effort and expertise 
> to the work of the DNSO, including work item proposal and development, 
> discussion of work items, draft document preparation, and participation in 
> research and drafting committees and working groups."

> Jeff Williams, Thomas Roessler and Eric Dierker have an equal right as 
> participants as they are all General Assembly members.  It is up to the 
> membership to decide which candidate will best represent our interests as the 
> voting member.  The runners-up in this election (having expressed a desire to 
> participate in the work of the TF) will be accorded the opportunity to do so 
> should such circumstance arise.  

> Those that do not plan to get involved in the substantive work of the DNSO 
> should allow those that are willing to do the work to get on with the job 
> that they are volunteering to do.  Maybe next time, others will volunteer to 
> actually do some work.

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

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:14:33 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-12-11 11:34:12 -0500, [email-masked] wrote to the DNSO
> secretariat:
>
> >On December 5, I announced my resignation from the transfers task
> >force and asked members of the GA to indicate whether they had an
> >interest in the position.  It was stated that elections would
> >begin after a week's time. During the course of this week three
> >individuals have expressed their interest in this position: Jeff
> >Williams, Thomas Roessler, and Eric Dierker.
>
> >Please begin an election.
>
> >The winner will become the GA's representative to the Task Force.
> >The next runner-up will become an official non-voting observer to
> >the Task Force.  The last-place candidate will become an observer
> >if and only if the Task Force expands the number of allotted
> >observers (which has not yet happened, but which is a
> >possibility).
>
> I OBJECT.
>
> Danny: In the message announcing your resignation from your TF seat,
> there was not a single word on eventual observers being sent to the
> Task Force.  The only assumption one could derive from that message
> is that a SINGLE representative to the Task Force will be elected by
> the GA.
>
> For this reason, the question how many observers shall be sent to
> the Transfers Task Force MUST either itself be subject to a vote of
> the members of the GA, or the GA MUST NOT send any GA observers to
> the TF. The runner-ups MUST NOT automatically become observers on
> the Task Force, just by an oukas of the GA's chair.

  I disagree in part.  That part being Thomas, that any and all
interested
parties, a la the MoU, should be able to observe on any ICANN related
Task Force. <Full Stop>  Anything less or other wise is just a form
of ideological manipulation or at lease extremely subject to it.  Your
own tone in your response to Danny seem to indicate that as well... :(
I am quite disappointed in anyone displaying such.

  Now that said here, I also in part agree with you that JUST to
runner-ups should be observers on ANY task force.  In addition,
I disagree to this extent with Danny in such an exclusionary
consideration.

>
>
> Quite frankly, I am NOT going to serve on the Transfer Task Force on
> the basis of an election which places me on that Task Force together
> with either Jeff Williams or Eric Dierker - be it due to the vote's
> outcome, or be it due to the way the ballot is prepared.

  Interesting comment here Thomas! My My, I could think you have
a personal problem with me and Eric!  How gosh!  How terribly
disgusting!  Perhaps I should parish this thought?  Please advise.

>
>
> A GA which (either by vote or by action of its chair) places any of
> these two individuals on any task force as its representative or as
> an observer does not deserve ANY kind of representation in the ICANN
> consensus process.

  MERCY!  Aren't we the little scrooge that wrecked the xmas sprit!
Heaven forbid!  So it seems than that you don't believe in an open,
transparent, and stakeholder driven process as outlined in the White
Paper or the MoU...  Very sad indeed!  :((

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

Regards,

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #917
************************