Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #919
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Wednesday, December 12 2001         Volume 01 : Number 919

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 23:22:36 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer

Mr. Walsh;

You are a pleasure to watch and read.  You certainly stand for the concepts of
openness and transparency.

You have openly and transparently never contributed a single positive document
or position to the GA.

You have never run for a position, never written a useable proposition and in
general you have never created anything here but animosity.  I just don't get
why someone would want to run their life all in the negative.

You have done well to destroy much fair, honest and good works.

Be sure of this that for every public post you make attacking me I receive a
half dozen private supporting and/or encouraging me.  But almost always
telling me not to respond to you.  A curse from you is an endorsement from the
majority.

Sincerely,
Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 10:51:32 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > I do not think TR knows me.  I think that he would find that once I
> > scraped some mud off my boots, removed my hat and took a shower I am not
> > so repulsive.  But sometimes the combination of my once being a lawyer
> > and now being a Lay Minister causes some to hate me out of hand.  So be
> > it, I cannot change my past or present avocations to suit everyone.
>
> It has nothing to do with your past or current occupations, but quite
> frankly with the way you conduct yourself, and have conducted
> yourself, on this forum and related forums.
>
> Your occupation, or past occupation, where you live, what you eat for
> breakfast, none of that has anything to do with the issues raised by
> TR and others in regard to this matter, so you can stop trying to make
> it out like you are being persecuted.   It's not believable.
>
> --
> 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 23:34:09 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Transfer

Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 11:22:36 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Mr. Walsh;

> You are a pleasure to watch and read.  You certainly stand for the concepts of
> openness and transparency.

> You have openly and transparently never contributed a single positive document
> or position to the GA.

Yeah, uh-huh, sure, Eric.  We will just pretend that the letter I
wrote on the transfer subject, signed by over 200 ISP/IPP/DRSPs,
didn't happen.

Persecution complexes are not very becoming Eric.

- -- 
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 01:38:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Elections

Eric and all assembly members,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Roeland thank you for your very helpful post here.  The whole post is full of
> very insightful matters but let me just address one at this time
>
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Failing that, funding the GA is an awful lot like a Mexican farmer expecting
> > to get irrigation water from the Colorado River. By the time it gets to him,
> > it's a mud trickle ... barely damp ground. Both the ICANN/BoD and the
> > DNSO/NC are upstream and have dams in place. Any money you put into that
> > pipe will hit those dams and be diverted, anywhere but to the DNSO/GA. I
> > hope that your money sources realize that.
> >
> > Are they planning to do like Markle and fund individuals directly? If so,
> > that's about the only way it'll happen and for that to work, they'd have to
> > be non-specific as to whom gets funded.
> > --
>
> This looks to me to be the only way to get it done.  "a stipend for the
> person(s) fulfilling the role of the Chair(s)
> of the GA."  There would have to be assurances against directing the activities
> of said chairs.

  Yes you could address the DNSO GA Chair funding in this manner.
However I doubt you will find to many donors.

>
>
> So then Roeland gets elected Chair, now someone would be able to gift to him.
> If you get ten at ten thousand you could actually make it a full time job.

10k a full time salary?  I don't think so.  You need to be talking at least
60k!  10k would just barely cover the travel expenses for the first
year.

> I
> would rather split the funding between two chairs and also use more of the money
> for expenses.  Or even a third that could actually act as a parliamentarian.

  Not even close here Eric.

>
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 01:42:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Michael and all assembly members,

  I too would actually have to agree with Thomas on this ONE point
as well...

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

> This seems quite persuasive to me.
>
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm 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

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 23:48:28 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer

Ok so I am an uninformed.  Please provide your reference as I do not see it.

William X Walsh wrote:

> Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 11:22:36 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Mr. Walsh;
>
> > You are a pleasure to watch and read.  You certainly stand for the concepts of
> > openness and transparency.
>
> > You have openly and transparently never contributed a single positive document
> > or position to the GA.
>
> Yeah, uh-huh, sure, Eric.  We will just pretend that the letter I
> wrote on the transfer subject, signed by over 200 ISP/IPP/DRSPs,
> didn't happen.
>
> Persecution complexes are not very becoming Eric.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 02:44:33 -0500 (EST)
From: [email-masked] (John Palmer)
Subject: Re: [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.
> 
> 

We chase him around the world and he just keeps popping up other
places. Like Leah said, one day he'll run out of ISP's. 

FYI: ADNS has a trademark on ".USA" and no its not prohibited
to get a trademark on a TLD - more ICANN FUD.

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 02:05:22 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer

Eric and all assembly member,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> I figured that since someone out there was saying that they could not
> work with me that perhaps they should know what I think about transfers
> and the problems faced by IDNH, ISPs and the registrars.

  The fact that Thomas feels he cannot or will not work with anyone
says allot about his character.  Enough said.  I see not reason
why anyone cannot or would not work with you.  I can see that some
might find if difficult.  I do for instance at times.  >;)

>
>
> There is no simple solution.  I understand and am sympathetic to the
> registrars' contractual and liability problems.

  These problems were caused and remain problems because of the
less that adequate provisions or overly noncompetitive nature
of of the Registrar accreditation contracts that the ICANN BoD
voted in favor of via Joe Sims and Louis Touton drafted and the
ICANN BOD and staff refused to allow for the stakeholders
to approve via a vote or negotiate certain aspects of to improve
them (See DNSO GA Archives).  We [INEGroup]  and a number
 or others warned of these contracts looming huge later at that
time.  Perhaps later has now arrived.

>
>
> I understand the frustration and incomprehensibleness of the system to
> Individuals.

  Frustration is only part of the problem.  As you know or I believe
understand,
the cost of this to the overall economy in the mid term and likely over
the long term has been huge and in the latter be even larger yet.  That's
a bit more than just frustration.  In fact it is these problems that have
fueled and will continue to fuel registry and registrar competition outside
of the legacy/USG root structure.  One can of course argue whether
this is good of bad overall.

>
>
> I full appreciate the danger and damage caused by faulty procedures and
> the ramifications to ISPs.

  Poor procedures maybe.  Faulty, no.

>
>
> I am also fully aware of the moral indignation of the user community
> when procedures are manipulated to the loss of the user.

  Indignation is only one aspect.  More important is the lack, to the
extent it exists on a user to user basis, is the service or lack there of
perceived by the user.

>
>
> But I am very confident that the motivations of all can be brought to a
> common understanding in the spirit of compromise.  As a GIS I am working
> on some models for some developing ccTLDs and welcome the opportunity to
> work with professionals that share a desire to produce solutions and
> route around problems that look antagonistic to working models.

  The ISP community will yet again, and it has started already, being
reborn and/or growing.  This burgeoning event will address some of these
concerns in time.

>
>
> I do not think TR knows me.  I think that he would find that once I
> scraped some mud off my boots, removed my hat and took a shower I am not
> so repulsive.  But sometimes the combination of my once being a lawyer
> and now being a Lay Minister causes some to hate me out of hand.  So be
> it, I cannot change my past or present avocations to suit everyone.

  Tolerance does not seem to be Thomas's strong suit.  As such I would
not and do not myself concern myself with his personal problem.

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

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:03:56 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 11:44:33 PM, John Palmer wrote:

>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 

> We chase him around the world and he just keeps popping up other
> places. Like Leah said, one day he'll run out of ISP's. 

> FYI: ADNS has a trademark on ".USA" and no its not prohibited
> to get a trademark on a TLD - more ICANN FUD.

No, its from the US PTO.

You are claiming a common law trademark, but the USPTO would reject
your application to register that mark.

- -- 
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:05:44 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Transfer

Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 11:48:28 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Ok so I am an uninformed.  Please provide your reference as I do not see it.

Eric,

I don't have to inform you.  I don't have to back up my contributions
to you.

Further, the proper defense to someone pointing out that your behavior
is the reason people are expressing concerns is not to contrast
yourself with the behavior of others.

If you really care, I'm sure one of your many claimed "Friends" who
post privately to you but not publicly to anyone else will dig up the
appropriate references for you.

- -- 
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:08:01 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Kristys' post on this matter have been dignified and correct.

The negative have been just that and obstructionist.

While folks like myself, JW and wxw argue the niceties of procedures,
moving forward
is more important than legalities.

Can we get JW, WXW and Roeland all on the watchdog committee.  Then I
would know no one is cheating.

Sincerely,
Eric

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:12:40 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Transfer

Typical;

You have nothing to add, only to detract.  Very sad indeed.

It is good that you are quitting on this subject because you clearly add nothing.

I wonder if you are ever happy, but then I do not wonder too much because the
answer is obvious> never.

William X Walsh wrote:

> Tuesday, Tuesday, December 11, 2001, 11:48:28 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Ok so I am an uninformed.  Please provide your reference as I do not see it.
>
> Eric,
>
> I don't have to inform you.  I don't have to back up my contributions
> to you.
>
> Further, the proper defense to someone pointing out that your behavior
> is the reason people are expressing concerns is not to contrast
> yourself with the behavior of others.
>
> If you really care, I'm sure one of your many claimed "Friends" who
> post privately to you but not publicly to anyone else will dig up the
> appropriate references for you.
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:33:42 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Alt.root'ers resorting to spam?

|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 11:45 PM
|> 
|> > 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.
|> 
|> We chase him around the world and he just keeps popping up other
|> places. Like Leah said, one day he'll run out of ISP's. 
|> 
|> FYI: ADNS has a trademark on ".USA" and no its not prohibited
|> to get a trademark on a TLD - more ICANN FUD.

I distinctly remember (and now I will have to dig up the exact references.
but, not tonight) That, in Oct99, the US PTO specifically issued a ruling
prohibiting registration of domain names and TLDs for purposes of
trademarks. I was writing up my WG-C submission at the time and remember
being disctinctly preturbed by the announcement. It caused me to change the
tone quite a bit. If this has changed yet again, I'd truely be interested.

If one could trademark a domain name then there is a legal defense
available, which I published on the NSI Domain-Policy list, years ago, that
would make the UDRP moot. It would also prevent registries from duplicating
existing TLDs, like ICANN did to BIZ.

The lawyers on this list can pop in any time now ...
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:29:59 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

Thomas Roessler wrote on 11.12.01, 22:39:02:
> 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.

I just looked in the archives, and Danny indeed
announced on 2001-12-05:
  If no one else volunteers for that position, I will 
  appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in 
  one week's time. 

/The/ representative means one person. If it had been
known before the end of the (quasi-) nomination phase that 
one voting GA representative *and* two non-voting GA
representatives were to be selected, we might have seen 
more than three volunteers. 

Danny explained in his 2001-12-11 posting that the
expansion is due to an un-ratified proposal within the
Task Force. While I understand that he wants to act as
quickly as possible, it must be clear at the outset
and /before/ the nomination process *how many* people
(and how many of them with voting rights) are to be
selected.

To move forward:

a) We could stick to the original proposal and take
   a vote for *one* candidate. That is a quick way
   to solve it, but if there should be additional 
   vacancies, we would need to take another vote.
   (This seems to depend on the TF, right?)

b) We could extend the nomination phase and see if
   there are additional candidates under these new
   circumstances. This is a clear-cut solution, but
   it would leave the GA unrepresented while the 
   nomination is extended (and the holidays are
   approaching, too).

c) We could take a double vote in one (if that is
   technically feasible): 
   GA voters could rank the current candidates 
   (Jeff, Eric, Thomas) and then choose whether
   they want to send the first, the top 2 or top 3.
   If a majority wants to send all 3, all 3 will
   become GA representatives, while the first is
   the voting representative.
   But I'm afraid it would be a somewhat confusing
   ballot. ;) Perhaps someone can improve it?

I understand that Danny wants to commend those who 
step forward to work in the Task Force. But this
cannot mean that everyone volunteering is guaranteed
a place as representative (voting or non-voting) --
the rules must be set out clearly before the whole
thing starts.

Personally, I would prefer a) to c) to b).

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 01:41:05 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

There are also times when not sending a rep is preferable to sending a
specific nominee.  The should be an option for the membership to
reject someone whose only claim to candidacy is that no one else
spoke up in the time allotted.

For example, sending no one is preferable to having JW represent the
GA in anything.

Wednesday, Wednesday, December 12, 2001, 1:29:59 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Thomas Roessler wrote on 11.12.01, 22:39:02:
>> 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.

> I just looked in the archives, and Danny indeed
> announced on 2001-12-05:
>   If no one else volunteers for that position, I will 
>   appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in 
>   one week's time. 

> /The/ representative means one person. If it had been
> known before the end of the (quasi-) nomination phase that 
> one voting GA representative *and* two non-voting GA
> representatives were to be selected, we might have seen 
> more than three volunteers. 

> Danny explained in his 2001-12-11 posting that the
> expansion is due to an un-ratified proposal within the
> Task Force. While I understand that he wants to act as
> quickly as possible, it must be clear at the outset
> and /before/ the nomination process *how many* people
> (and how many of them with voting rights) are to be
> selected.

> To move forward:

> a) We could stick to the original proposal and take
>    a vote for *one* candidate. That is a quick way
>    to solve it, but if there should be additional 
>    vacancies, we would need to take another vote.
>    (This seems to depend on the TF, right?)

> b) We could extend the nomination phase and see if
>    there are additional candidates under these new
>    circumstances. This is a clear-cut solution, but
>    it would leave the GA unrepresented while the 
>    nomination is extended (and the holidays are
>    approaching, too).

> c) We could take a double vote in one (if that is
>    technically feasible): 
>    GA voters could rank the current candidates 
>    (Jeff, Eric, Thomas) and then choose whether
>    they want to send the first, the top 2 or top 3.
>    If a majority wants to send all 3, all 3 will
>    become GA representatives, while the first is
>    the voting representative.
>    But I'm afraid it would be a somewhat confusing
>    ballot. ;) Perhaps someone can improve it?

> I understand that Danny wants to commend those who 
> step forward to work in the Task Force. But this
> cannot mean that everyone volunteering is guaranteed
> a place as representative (voting or non-voting) --
> the rules must be set out clearly before the whole
> thing starts.

> Personally, I would prefer a) to c) to b).

> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> --
> 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

- -- 
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:30:05 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

[I'm replying to multiple messages here.]

On 2001-12-11 17:33:49 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:

>Ah, so you individual judgment is superior than to the collective 
>judgment of the DNSO GA members perhaps?  I do hope you are not 
>seriously thinking such.

All I said was that when my judgement entirely differs fom the GA's 
collective judgement, I wouldn't (and shouldn't) represent this GA 
on any TF.  Such representation would quite obviously be pointless.

On 2001-12-11 21:01:37 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote, about my notes on 
procedural points:

>Perhaps I am mistaken but I cannot find any reference to the rules 
>that this premise requires to be persuasive. No rules for the 
>election of TF members, no rules for the determination of who 
>shall be on task forces from the GA.  The closest we find is the 
>rule as set forth earlier today by our chair and it certainly is 
>not persuasive to this premise.

Let me quote Danny Younger's original posting from December 5: 

>Pleased be advised that I have resigned from the names council 
>transfers task force.  At this time, I am only aware of one GA 
>member that has expressed an interest in representing the GA in 
>that capacity, Jeff Williams.  If no one else volunteers for that 
>position, I will appoint Jeff Williams as the GA representative in 
>one week's time.  Should others also declare an interest, an 
>election will be held.

There's not a single word about observers in this message, and the 
most reasonable way to read it was that a single candidate was being 
looked for.  In fact the idea of observers was first presented to 
the GA in a message sent by Danny on Fri, 7 Dec 2001 15:21:38 EST, 
where he says that it "would be logical to have the runner-ups in 
our election serve in such a capacity.  The gTLDs have requested one 
TF rep and two additional participants, and our GA rep will need to 
cast a vote on how many participants will ultimately be allowed 
entry into this TF." This message doesn't contain more than a 
_suggestion_ on how the observers may possibly be selected.  It 
shouldn't be taken as the basis for the rules of this election.

Instead, if this GA wishes to nominate observers to the TF, there 
should either be a vote on the number of representatives to be sent 
to the TF, or there should be an independent vote on these observers 
(with the option for the GA not to accept a possible observer).

On 2001-12-11 16:44:19 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>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.

As you know quite well, we are _not_ talking about a working group, 
but about a task force where constituencies and the GA are supposed 
to send _representatives_.  These are _not_ supposed to send just 
about anyone who may be interested in the topic, but those who may 
reasonably contribute to the discussions of the task force .  You 
may agree with this concept, or you may not, but that should not be 
the issue here.

In particular, the GA should have the right to vote on by whom it is 
represented - and by whom it is _not_ represented.  This should NOT 
be at the discretion of the GA's chair.  (But I start to sound like 
a broken record.)

Finally, note that this is not just the question who may have voting 
rights on the Task Force.  It's also the question who should have a 
right to speak there.  While you may or may not want to deny this 
kind of participation in the TF to any GA member, the GA, 
collectively, may quite well wish to do so, and should have the 
opportunity.

(Note that _everyone_ is able to "observe" the Task Force's work in 
the sense of read access through the web archive.)

- -- 
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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 10:43:49 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: European Union will study ICANN

According to Heise Online's Monika Ermert,
(http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/wst-11.12.01-000/)
the DG Information Society of the European Commission
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/information_society/
- -- please don't comment on the site's design! *sigh*)
will commission a study on ICANN's work.

The invitation for tenders is to be published in
the Official Journal of the European Communities
(http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/oj/index.html)
in February, according to Richard Delmas (DG Infosoc).
The selection process for new TLDs will form part of
the study.

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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 11:17:12 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council teleconference 13 December telephone numbers and codes

[ 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: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:16:17 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] OBJECTION Re: Transfer TF elections

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 22:39:02 +0100, Thomas Roessler
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>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.

I endorse this view entirely.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #919
************************