Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #991
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, January 15 2002          Volume 01 : Number 991

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:12:47 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thank you.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:15:54 -0800, Jeff Williams
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
>> I'm writing this message on behalf of Alexander and myself.  First
>> of all, we'd like to thank you for the trust you have expressed by
>> giving us your votes.
>>
>> We'll try to make this mailing list a better place for fruitful
>> discussions on DNSO issues - under the assumption that the NC
>> chooses to follow the GA's wishes, of course. ;-)
>
>  I hope by stating the GA wishes, you mean ALL of the members
>of the GA here?  Please advise.

You do not seem to understand the context of what Thomas said.  He is
referring to the fact he is not GA Chair unless the NC endorses the
result of the GA Chair election.

On a more theoretical point it is impossible for the NC to follow the
wishes of all members of the GA as they are of course not the same.

>> Some things we'll do, or try to do:
>>
>>  - Alexander will take over list monitoring.  For the time being,
>>    he'll be the only list monitor.
>
>  I believe the current rules require three monitors, do they not?

No they do not.  The rules are at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:53:31 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thank you.

Dave and all assembly members,

DPF wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:15:54 -0800, Jeff Williams
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >
> - snip -

>
> >> We'll try to make this mailing list a better place for fruitful
> >> discussions on DNSO issues - under the assumption that the NC
> >> chooses to follow the GA's wishes, of course. ;-)
> >
> >  I hope by stating the GA wishes, you mean ALL of the members
> >of the GA here?  Please advise.
>
> You do not seem to understand the context of what Thomas said.  He is
> referring to the fact he is not GA Chair unless the NC endorses the
> result of the GA Chair election.

  Yes I understood perfectly the context of Thomas's comments/statement.
I was not referring to the endorsement of the NC i n any way.  I was
directly referring to the GA members, ALL of them.  I was assuming
that the NC would indeed endorse his election.  They should of course.

>
>
> On a more theoretical point it is impossible for the NC to follow the
> wishes of all members of the GA as they are of course not the same.

  I was no asking or assuming that the NC could indeed do as you suggest.

In fact, I did not mention the NC in any context.  I was referring to
the Chair (Thomas).  So therefore as chair of the GA he can and must
be in touch with the wishes of the GA members and their wishes
as they express them, or already have expressed them, at least
those GA members that are participating actively.  BTW, most
if not all of the NC are also GA members.  Many obviously do not
or have not recently participated or are otherwise active participants.

>
>
> >> Some things we'll do, or try to do:
> >>
> >>  - Alexander will take over list monitoring.  For the time being,
> >>    he'll be the only list monitor.
> >
> >  I believe the current rules require three monitors, do they not?
>
> No they do not.  The rules are at
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

  I beg to differ.  At the URL reference above the following
applies to list monitors:
"Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the
task
of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.
These are selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be

removed from the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any
time.
A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General
Assembly.
Normally the appointment would be for 1 year."

  As you can plainly see, it says "List monitors" (Plural), not monitor
(Singular).
I am of course assuming three as that has been the practice thus far...

>
>
> 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

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, 15 Jan 2002 21:51:40 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] List Monitors

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:53:31 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:

> > No they do not.  The rules are at
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
>
>  I beg to differ.  At the URL reference above the following
> applies to list monitors:
> "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the
>  taskof monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules. These are
> selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed
> from the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.

> A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General
> Assembly.  Normally the appointment would be for 1 year."
>
> As you can plainly see, it says "List monitors" (Plural), not monitor
> (Singular).  I am of course assuming three as that has been the practice
> thus far...

Hi Jeff

Whilst you will never admit when you are wrong, you are in this case.

When Roberto Gaetano was Chair, there was only one list monitor viz the
Alternate Chair, Harald Tveit Alvestrand.  The next Chair was Danny Younger
(with me as Alternate Chair).

I suggested to Danny that it would be good to appoint three list monitors to
ensure representation and guard against complaints.  Some some reason, unknown
to me, he appointed five.  They were Alexander Svensson, Kristy McKee, Bruce
James and myself with Harald Tveit Alvestrand in a continuing capacity.

Eventually, Bruce and Harald resigned and my position as list monitor was
terminated by Danny.  That left Alexander and Kristy to perform the role
together.  Later, when a conflict arose, they could not continue.

So under Roberto there was one list monitor.  Under Danny there were
officially five.  During Danny's reign the number of de facto list monitors
ranged from zero to five.

Whilst the wording of the rule says "certain persons appointed by the GA
Chair (the list monitors) have the task of monitoring the list for posts that
violate these rules", I see no cause for reading this too pedantically.

Firstly, I understand it was written by a person whose native language was
not English.  All you need to do is insert a hyphen to read "person/s".

 Secondly, when one list monitor resigns another gets appointed.  Thus the
Chair has appointed more than one person.  If the word was in the sigular, a
strict interpretation would argue that, since the Chair had already appointed
ONE person, they couldn't appoint another.  That's nonsense as you know.

As is wasting time arguing about procedural issues on this mailing list.

Thomas is 100% right to appoint one list monitor viz Alexander.  I would do
the same in his position except I would have chosen somebody other than
the Alt Chair.  That's only because of the amount of work involved.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 14:42:52 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [fwd] Informal Whois Briefing at RIPE/Amsterdam (from: [email-masked])

For your information.

Miriam Sapiro of Verisign asked for this announcement to be 
distributed to the GA list.

> For those interested in the ongoing development of a Universal Whois
> Service, as required by Appendix W of VeriSign's Registry Agreement with
> ICANN, VeriSign is participating in two working groups at the Jan 14-18,
> 2002, RIPE meeting taking place in Amsterdam.  Members of the VeriSign R&D
> team will be attending the CENTR DNR Forum and Database working group
> meetings later in the week to provide an update since the last RIPE
> session, and to seek further input.  
> 
> The RIPE meeting agenda is available from http://www.ripe.net
> 
> If you are not attending RIPE, but will be in the Amsterdam area at that
> time, the VeriSign team would be pleased to meet with you separately --
> please contact Leslie Daigle ([email-masked]) to set up a time.
> 
> 
> *  *  *  *  *
> Background:
> 
> VeriSign is undertaking development of Universal Whois Service
> that will allow public access and effective use of Whois
> across all Registries and all TLDs, as required by Appendix W of its
> Registry Agreement with ICANN.
> 
> VeriSign conducted three formal consultations on the research and 
> development effort specified in its Registry Agreement.  The first 
> consultation was hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on August 15, 
> and focused on input from business, intellectual property and law 
> enforcement interests.  The second consultation was held on November 15, 
> and was intended to reach out to the international community attending 
> the ICANN Annual Meeting.  The third consultation was hosted by the Center
> for Democracy and Technology on November 19, and focused on getting input 
> from civil liberties and other NGO groups.
> 
> In addition to these formal consultations, VeriSign has held, or plans 
> to hold, informal consultations on the margins of key international 
> technical meetings for those attendees, including:
> · 
> RIPE - October 3-4, 2001 (DNR Working Group and Database Working Group), 
> Prague
> · 
> NANOG - October 23, 2001, Oakland
> · 
> ARIN - October 29-31, Miami
> · 
> RIPE - January 14-19, 2002, Amsterdam
> · 
> APRICOT  - March 3-7, 2002, Bangkok (tentative)
> 
> We have also set up a website to enable anyone, anywhere, to provide 
> input.  It can be accessed at http://uwho.verisignlabs.com.

- --
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, 15 Jan 2002 15:30:48 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Thank you.

On Tuesday 15 January 2002 2:12 am, you wrote:

> Hmm, I'll ask Darrell to repost the JW FAQ for you.

I am not in to any FAQ on anybody, I do not care what they did yesterday just 
what they are doing now on this list.
We all make mistakes or spell things wrong, it's the tasks at hand that I 
will make my notes on.

> Well, when Harald did it alone, it was done efficiently and without
> problem.  However, when Danny appointed 5 of them, nothing got done
> timely, and sanctions were handed out as long as a month or longer
> after an infraction.  I think 1 is the best solution, and I don't
> think it is too daunting a tast.

I don't think it is a daunting task either and whether there ar 2 or more is 
of no importance, but for the sake of argument 2 is always better then one, 
so a more levelheaded approach is possble.
Furthermore is it my opinion that this task should not be be one carried out 
by the chair or co for that matter, but then again I have (to me) clear cut 
ideas on what a chair does.
I think it would be far better and less controversially inclined if 2 or more 
GA members did this job.

> > One of the main reasons for the creations of WG's has just been given
>
> Workgroups should only be created for specific purposes and have a
> specific lifetime.

To that I couldn't agree more, DELETE is such a specific purpose and the 
lifetime would be untill a draft is approved by the GA.

So I gather you support that idea too ?

regards

abel wisman

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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, 15 Jan 2002 11:05:30 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Thank you.

- --part1_146.7d57c74.2975ad4a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 1/15/2002 9:39:51 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Furthermore is it my opinion that this task should not be be one carried out 
> by the chair or co for that matter, but then again I have (to me) clear cut 
> ideas on what a chair does.
> I think it would be far better and less controversially inclined if 2 or 
> more 
> GA members did this job.
> 

Perhaps 3 would be more efficient... William Walsh, Jeff Williams and Eric D. 

Jess

- --part1_146.7d57c74.2975ad4a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/15/2002 9:39:51 AM Central Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Furthermore is it my opinion that this task should not be be one carried out 
<BR>by the chair or co for that matter, but then again I have (to me) clear cut 
<BR>ideas on what a chair does.
<BR>I think it would be far better and less controversially inclined if 2 or more 
<BR>GA members did this job.
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>Perhaps 3 would be more efficient... William Walsh, Jeff Williams and Eric D. 
<BR>
<BR>Jess</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_146.7d57c74.2975ad4a_boundary--
- --
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, 16 Jan 2002 03:32:18 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: The GA -- A Respected Forum ?

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:41:02 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2002-01-14 10:43:27 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> >Have a look around.  When did you last see a post from any of the
> >respected participants other than Chuck Gomes who was arguing for
> >VeriSign's WLS proposal?
>
> Oh, I saw posts from Bret Fausett, from Ross Rader, from Elliot
> Noss, and from quite a few other individuals from the
> registrar/registry communities.  In fact, an interim version of last
> week's summary I produced on Thursday was already longer than the
> summary for the first week of this year.

I have been on the GA mailing list since early 2000.  That's nearly two years.
The first posting that I have ever seen from from Elliot Noss was on [ga-full]
on 8 January 2002 as follows:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg00212.html

AFAICT, other newcomers to the list include Hugh Blair, Abel Wisman, George
Kirikos, Spy Productions, Harold Whiting, Genie Livingstone, Steven Heath,
Peter Girard, Bill@Daze, Ron Wiener, Larry Erlich, Don Brown, Matthew Pemble,
dotsplash, Joyce Lin, Les Bayles, Lee Hodgson, Kai Schaetzl and Paul Stahura.

Most of their postings are cross-posted with [icann-delete] and quite a few
postings do not appear on [ga] but only on [ga-full].  This suggests that they
are not all subscribed to the GA mailing list but have simply hit "reply all".

Those who have posted to [ga] are Don Brown, Abel Wisman, Matthew Pemble,
George Kirikos, Harold Whiting, Genie Livingstone, Elliot Noss, Steven Heath
and Dave Warren (9 persons).  They, at least, are now subscribed.

In fact the whole thread started with a posting from Rick H. Wesson on 4
January 2002 under the name "VGRS Wait List" as follows:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00057.html

But it really took of with the reply from Ross Wm. Rader on the same day.
This was cross-posted between [ga] and the the OpenSRS [discuss] list
where he wrote:

> I would also like to hear more from all of you concerning what you think
> about the NSI proposal - feel free to continue with the discussion here or
> within the ICANN General Assembly mailing list as you see fit.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00070.html

On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:38:09 -0500, Ross Wm. Rader pushed it along a bit:
Subject: [ga] Fw: [icann-delete] Proposal: Registry Re-circulation System

> Ron asked me to pass this on to the Registrars list for the benefit of those
> that aren't subscribed to the ICANN-Delete list. I've taken the liberty of
> posting this additionally to GA and discuss-list - apologies to those that
> receive all four copies.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00186.html

Of course, Ross Wm. Rader is a long-time member of the [ga] mailing list.
However, he is also an OpenSRS / Tucows executive officer.

On OpenSRS [discuss] list you will find Don Brown, Elliot Noss, Kai Schaetzl,
bill@daze,  George Kirikos, Abel Wisman, Harold Whiting, Genie Livingstone,
Dave Warren, Lee Hodgson, Spy Productions and Hugh Blair.

My guess is that they are all OpenSRS resellers.  Ron Wiener is, of course,
SnapNames, the Verisign partner.

On the ICANN website you there are very many accredited registrars.
http://www.icann.org/registrars/accredited-list.html

Apart from Verisign itself, all of the posting to [ga] have been from just one
of these viz. OpenSRS.  I would refute, therefore, your implication that we
are getting a representative sample of registrars.  All we have is OpenSRS
resellers.

In fact, the true situation supports my contention that the GA is NOT
representative of a wide range of geographic, industry, non-commercial or even
individual views.

That's not to say I don't welcome input from people like Abel Wisman who has
quickly grasped the inherent problems within the General Assembly forum.

> What I want is more of that stuff.  And less of the procedural
> discussions you seem to like so much.

I'm sorry that you have missed the point.  That is that the General Assembly
is not capable of providing effective domain name policy input to ICANN.

At least in the present environment !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 03:52:15 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Thank you.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:55:25 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Some things we'll do, or try to do:
>
>  - Alexander will take over list monitoring.  For the time being,
>    he'll be the only list monitor.

Good choice but a heavy workload to do both.

>  - The GA's rules of conduct and the posting limit (5 posts per day
>    and individual) will be enforced. In particular, those who are
>    currently exceeding their posting limit on a regular basis should
>    make use of the time until the names council teleconference on
>    Friday to get used to a lower posting frequency again.

With you mailing list experience, can we automate this ?

<snip>

>  - We'll try to persuade the DNSO constituencies to more frequently
>    move discussions on interesting and important topics to the GA
>    list, like the registrars did with WLS.  Of course, constituency
>    members are welcome to follow the topics. ;-)

Ideally we need forums to which they can relate.  They do not want to
participate in a general mish-mash of topics unrelated to their interests.

>  - We'll try to persuade the GA's representatives to the various task
>    forces to send reports to the GA list on a half-regular basis.
>    Look at David Farrar's report from the review task force, or at
>    Marc Schneider's latest summary on dot-org for examples.

The Task Forces are captured by the big business interests.

>    (We'll write more on the Task Force vs. WG issue in a separate
>    posting.)

I'll reply to that separately.

> You may notice that much of this involves persuading others to do
> something.  That's right.  We can't, we don't want, and we won't
> be the entertainers who fill this mailing list with discussions.

You will find "persuasion" to be harder than you think.

> However, we will try to make sure that YOU find an agreeable
> framework for intelligent discussions on this mailing list.

Let's hope so.  With your views I am not optimistic, I'm afraid.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 04:27:24 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-02

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:36:38 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Topics
>
> (i) domain-policy archives.  According to a message from Chuck
> Gomes, in reply to a question from Patrick Corliss, the
> domain-policy mailing list was shut down by Verisign for legal
> reasons in May 2001.
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00212.html>

That's not accurate.  Apart from VeriSign's misleading communications,
a significant part of the discussion related to their removal of the list
archives.  I requested that they be restored except for the offending
articles.  They are an important historical record.

<snip>

> (iii) Deleted domain name handling.  This was certainly the week's
> dominant topic.

As I pointed out in a separate posting, most of this discussion was led by
OpenSRS staff supported by a number of OpenSRS resellers.  Your summary
does not fully specify the respective relationships.

> (iv) Working groups, sublists, etc.  As a spin-off from the deleted
> domains thread (which, bad enough, seems to have mostly killed that
> thread),

Not at all, a poll was held seeking people's views.  There was overwhelming
opposition to VeriSign's WLS proposal.  So much had been said (as you
explained in your summary) that there wasn't that much to add.  What is
needed now is a proper debate on how the current system should be fixed.

You have, however, taken it upon yourself to oppose any suggestion that
the introduction of an Open Working Group would be a possible approach.

> some discussion on working groups and sublists came up,
> including on-list straw polls on whether or not the GA should start
> a working group on the deletion issue, or whether people like the
> WLS.  David Farrar writes about these: "Could I suggest both this
> poll and the previous one while well intentioned lead to the GA
> being more dysfunctional.  Many do not subscribe here to see 40
> people vote on a list."
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00408.html>

David made a valid point in his first sentence.  However, my experience shows
that it is impossible to get the Chair to recommend a formal vote unless and
until the membership indicates its views by means of a straw poll.  Your own
opposition is ample proof.

If you want a proper vote via the DNSO Secretariat you only need to ask.

However, that's not what you want and comments from David and William
speaking of behalf of the GA membership are no more representative of their
views than are your own personal opinions.

That's why we need to find out what they genuinely think !!

> In two short messages to the GA list, the new Chair and Alt.Chair
> have pointed out what their immediate plans are. These include:
>
>  - Enforce list rules, including the posting limit.  (Alexander will
>    be the list monitor.)
>  - Try to attract discussions and participants from various
>    constituencies to the GA.
>  - Concerning GA working groups and sublists, a "show traffic, get
>    group" policy will be followed for the moment: If sustained
>    discussions on some topic become too much, and participants desire
>    it, the chairs will try to organize a new mailing list for these.

As it happens, the GA has already indicated -- by means of a motion -- that
they want "procedural" issues taken off the main list and transferred to GA
Rules.  Danny improperly failed to forward that on to the DNSO Secretariat.

>  - Concerning task forces, there's nothing which prevents the GA
>    members from discussing topics.  According to the "show traffic,
>    get group" policy, "mirror working groups" may be established.

We already have "special purpose" mailing lists.  All you need to do is
support them and they will get used.

>    The GA rep to task forces has the responsibility to inform task
>    force members of the GA's discussions.
>
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00480.html>,
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00484.html>.

With only one GA rep, the Task Forces represent capture.

> Good night,

Best wishes
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:33:21 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: List Monitors

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:53:31 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > > No they do not.  The rules are at
> > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html
> >
> >  I beg to differ.  At the URL reference above the following
> > applies to list monitors:
> > "Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the
> >  taskof monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules. These are
> > selected by the GA Chair for a given period of time, but may be removed
> > from the role by the GA Chair or at their own request at any time.
>
> > A list monitor may also be removed by a majority vote of the General
> > Assembly.  Normally the appointment would be for 1 year."
> >
> > As you can plainly see, it says "List monitors" (Plural), not monitor
> > (Singular).  I am of course assuming three as that has been the practice
> > thus far...
>
> Hi Jeff
>
> Whilst you will never admit when you are wrong, you are in this case.

  Oh?  Well your are entitled to you opinion as is everyone else.  None
the less the wording is as it is.  As you know, or if you remember, the
current list rules are and remain illegitimate anyway, as the vote taken
for their implementation was using Joops "Voting Booth" and we know
that at least two GA members admittedly voted more than once.  Ergo
this argument and comment is moot at best.  Hence the remainder of
you rather long explanation, a bit of overkill, is not all that useful or
even appropriate.

  The fact that the new Chair can appoint monitors (Plural) is really
all that that matters or is relevant with respect to the context, not the
fact's or history of these illegitimate rules.  I agree that the Chair
should be able to make a selection of monitors (Plural) none the less
for many obvious reasons that I don't feel is necessary to elaborate
upon.  But just one is not enough and the GA members should have
a vote of approval of any monitors (Plural) before they are seated,
so to speak.

  And again, "Without good process you cannot have good product".

>
>
> When Roberto Gaetano was Chair, there was only one list monitor viz the
> Alternate Chair, Harald Tveit Alvestrand.  The next Chair was Danny Younger
> (with me as Alternate Chair).
>
> I suggested to Danny that it would be good to appoint three list monitors to
> ensure representation and guard against complaints.  Some some reason, unknown
> to me, he appointed five.  They were Alexander Svensson, Kristy McKee, Bruce
> James and myself with Harald Tveit Alvestrand in a continuing capacity.
>
> Eventually, Bruce and Harald resigned and my position as list monitor was
> terminated by Danny.  That left Alexander and Kristy to perform the role
> together.  Later, when a conflict arose, they could not continue.
>
> So under Roberto there was one list monitor.  Under Danny there were
> officially five.  During Danny's reign the number of de facto list monitors
> ranged from zero to five.
>
> Whilst the wording of the rule says "certain persons appointed by the GA
> Chair (the list monitors) have the task of monitoring the list for posts that
> violate these rules", I see no cause for reading this too pedantically.
>
> Firstly, I understand it was written by a person whose native language was
> not English.  All you need to do is insert a hyphen to read "person/s".
>
>  Secondly, when one list monitor resigns another gets appointed.  Thus the
> Chair has appointed more than one person.  If the word was in the sigular, a
> strict interpretation would argue that, since the Chair had already appointed
> ONE person, they couldn't appoint another.  That's nonsense as you know.
>
> As is wasting time arguing about procedural issues on this mailing list.
>
> Thomas is 100% right to appoint one list monitor viz Alexander.  I would do
> the same in his position except I would have chosen somebody other than
> the Alt Chair.  That's only because of the amount of work involved.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

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, 15 Jan 2002 12:32:31 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

Ron,

I haven't yet had a time to digest the entire PDF, so these comments are
limited to a specific portion of the document. Further comments on the rest
of the document later.

You have completely mischaracterized the Registrar teleconference from last
week.

First, this was a constituency conference call, not an accredited registrar
conference call. The difference between these two groups is slight but
different. Every accredited registrar is not necessarily a member of the
DNSO, nor the registrar constituency. The DNSO process only accounts for
those that have self-selected to participate in the process. As such, the
constituency can only speak for those that wish to participate. Your comment
that the call represented only a handful of interests is therefore
inaccurate. In fact, the call represented a majority of member registrars.

Second, the question under discussion was whether or not the proposals under
discussion merited endorsement by the constituency or not. This was in
response to Chuck Gomes request that registrars provide their comments to
VGRS by the 18th of this month. It is difficult for a constituency to
determine whether or not support should be given for a particular proposal
if the membership has not been consulted. Note that it was not the purpose
of this call to counter-propose, redefine or otherwise negotiate the
proposals on the table. VGRS has indicated on a number of occasions that
they view this as counter-productive and are only interested in feedback on
this particular proposal. While this particular VGRS request was curious,
and somewhat disappointing, the constituency attempted to fulfill it as
requested.

Third, you indicate that only six opposed the WLS proposal, in fact, the
number was actually 17. Further, the notes from the call indicate
explicitly, that only one registrar would be offering the service regardless
of the outcome but that they did not support the proposal as currently
written.

Fourth, you state that a handful of registrars have appointed themselves to
a drafting committee to come up with an alternate proposal, thus recreating
the process that had started six months ago. Two comments here. First, the
"handful of registrars" were appointed by the constituency to draft a
response to the VGRS proposal as Chuck Gomes requested. Responses such as
the one that VGRS has requested do not magically appear overnight as if left
by the tooth fairy. It is common constituency process to strike groups such
as this in order that the constituency has a clear and concise statement of
position on various issues. Second, the mandate of this group is first and
foremost, to draft a response, as requested, to Verisign concerning the WLS.

Based on this, you then attempt to draw a straight line between the obvious
consensus of the constituency and the self-interest of registrars catering
to speculators. You try to do so based on the outstanding comments of the
registrars that have never participated in the DNSO process and the
self-interests of registrars at the table. I believe that I have
sufficiently illustrated the fallacy of the first statement. To the second
point I can only say that *every* participant in the DNSO process is
self-interested. This is why the constituency structure is so important - it
serves to balance the inherent self-interest in the overall structure. Even
if we buy this argument that a few self-interested registrars are somehow
determining the constituency consensus, please note that 4 out of the top
five registrars (who constitute an even smaller percentage than the 10% that
you point to in your dissertation) unanimously do not support this proposal.
The fifth, far from being supportive of the proposition at this point, has
reserved comment until they have finished their analysis. These registrars
represent in excess of 90% of all domain names registered.

In another portion, you plead with the community to react on your behalf
lest us registrars hijack the decision making process. If you were serious
about this, you would open up the "decision making process" to include other
impacted stakeholders (as opposed to explicitly and solely inviting
registrar feedback) and allowing the consensus policy process to take its
natural course. You hold these words up, yet you seem to fail to understand
them.

Finally, you hold up your arguments as a defense of the common man from evil
speculative interests while claiming that the registrars are clearly in a
conflict of interest in representing their own interests. How do you justify
the implicit paradox that this represents?

I am deeply disappointed with this obvious attempt to distract the
participants in this discussion from what the real issues are. I am more
disappointed by your attempts to demonize your direct customers. You expect
us to both buy your arguments and your products - which would be a pleasure
if you didn't appear intent on destroying the character of registrars as a
group.

I do have one question for VGRS and SnapNames however based on a couple of
statements made by Chuck last October concerning

"ICANN would certainly need to be involved if any changes were required to
existing agreements or existing policy."

and

"In response to Ross' question about where we go from here, I stated that I
am still willing to work with ICANN with regard to policy issues and within
VGRS to develop estimated time frames for the possible implementation of the
[WLS] proposal."

When do you expect that this will finally happen? My preference is that it
occur before you arbitrarily launch the service without appropriately
consulting the community. Perhaps this is a self-interested minority view as
well however, so I might be off-base wth this one.

- -rwr

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Wiener" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: [icann-delete] WLS Input - Greatest Good vs. Benefits of the Few

> Rather than respond to individual response documents and e-mail posts,
> please find attached a concise document, in PDF format.
>
> Cheers,
> Ron
>

- --
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, 15 Jan 2002 09:43:37 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Thank you.

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 03:30:48PM +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2002 2:12 am, you wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, I'll ask Darrell to repost the JW FAQ for you.
> 
> I am not in to any FAQ on anybody, I do not care what they did
> yesterday just what they are doing now on this list.

It is quite common for those new to an activity to want to ignore what 
went before -- it compensates for their lack of knowledge of the 
history.

> We all make mistakes or spell things wrong, it's the tasks at hand that I 
> will make my notes on.

JW isn't making mistakes.  It's all quite deliberate.

> I think it would be far better and less controversially inclined if 2
> or more GA members did this job. 

I have a better idea.  Why don't we put such decisions up to an online 
vote of the full membership?  That would obviously generate the least 
amount of controversy.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #991
************************