Re: [ga] Peace on Earth, NC and BC, please

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roeland and all assembly members,

  I don't agree with your #2 below.  But the format is a good one
none the less.  As Joanna pointed out quite rightly, a poll with
this as the motion in it's entirety is a good second option.  However
as I replied to Joanna's post, using the "Best Practices" approach
and the voting mechanism to document and verify historically, would
be much more preferable.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Hello Mike,
>
> Let me make this simpler for you.
>
> Whereas, the Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. is a Delaware registered
> corporation and qualifies as a small business, under US SBA guidelines (see:
> http://www.mhsc.com/legal.htm), since 1997.
>
> Whereas, MHSC is a common law trademark and brand of the Morgan Hill
> Software Company, Inc.
>
> Whereas, MHSC registers names in the non-ICANN TLDs of MHSC and VPN. Ergo,
> MHSC is a DNS SLD registry.
>
> Whereas, MHSC also carries TLDs, such as AtlanticRoot's BIZ, MHSC is also a
> TLD registry.
>
> Whereas, MHSC operates a non-ICANN controlled zone server network, including
> root authority.
>
> Whereas, MHSC distributes and publishes the MHSC root zone file via said
> zone server network and has sole authority over that network and its
> contents.
>
> Whereas, MHSC is restricted from joining the DNSO/BC specifically because
> MHSC is a registry.
>
> Whereas, MHSC is restricted from joining the DNSO/RC specifically because
> MHSC is a non-ICANN registry.
>
> Whereas, MHSC finds common cause with David Hernand, of New.Net
>
> Whereas, MHSC has its own dispute resolution mechanism and has no need of
> the UDRP.
>
> Whereas, MHSC has been such a registry for far longer than ICANN has even
> existed and doesn't plan to cease operation anytime soon.
>
> Whereas, MHSC supports Jefesy Morfin's efforts to bring about constructive
> change in the DNSO/BC but, considers those efforts to have a very low
> probability of success.
>
> Whereas, MHSC finds that ICANN is in violation of inclusiveness
> requirements, given by DOC MoU, signed in 1998.
>
> Whereas, MHSC finds that the DNSO/GA is the only all inclusive body for all
> ICANN domain name holders.
>
> Whereas, the ICANN BoD has previously established authority over the
> structure of the DNSO by creating the constituencies of the DNSO and that
> authority has never been recinded.
>
> MHSC demands that;
> 1: The ICANN BoD instruct the DNSO/BC to stop excluding potential members
> that are legally registered and constituted businesses for any reason. That
> such practices have already caused irrepairable harm and minimum
> compensatory action shall be to grant such membership, of previously
> excluded members, at no charge, for a period equal to the time that such
> exclusionary practices have been in effect (at least 3 years).
>
> 2: The ICANN place the DNSO/GA on equal footing with the current DNSO names
> council, creating a bicameral DNSO. That the ICANN provide funding and
> support for a secure voting mechanism that the GA can use for its consensus
> building efforts. That the ICANN provide budget and staffing for the DNSO/GA
> to perform its functions. That the DNSO/GA be given ICANN BoD seats, to be
> filled by a representitive voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA.
> That  such funding be derived from a $1US surcharge, per domain name, per
> year, from ICANN all registered domain names. That the GA shall have both an
> Advocate and a Consensus Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with
> budgetary control and responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.
>
> --
> R O E L A N D  M J  M E Y E R
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company
> http://www.mhsc.com
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: Mike Roberts [mailto:mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us]
> |> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:05 PM
> |>
> |> Jefsey - Both this message and its distribution are entirely out of
> |> order.  I hope that you will immediately retract it.
> |>
> |> As an SME member of the BC, the Darwin Group strongly objects to the
> |> positions advocated in your note.  I suspect that the chances of it
> |> receiving consensus support from other BC SME's, much less the full
> |> membership, are near zero.
> |>
> |> If you wish to promote your individual views of various courses of
> |> action, there are numerous avenues within the ICANN
> |> structure, all of
> |> which you seem to be intimately familiar with, through which to
> |> advocate them.
> |>
> |> - Michael M. Roberts
> |> Managing Director, The Darwin Group, Inc.
> |> DNSO/BC member
> |>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> At 8:52 PM +0200 10/17/01, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> |> >Ladies and Gentlemen from the NC,
> |> >Fellow Members from the DNSO/BC,
> |> >
> |> >whereas a letter from David Hernand from New.net has been sent to
> |> >the Members of the NC to escalate the denial of the DNSO/BC to
> |> >accept New.net as a Member while the logic of the given  reasons
> |> >seriously question the rights to Membership of a
> |> significant part of
> |> >the DNSO/BC Members and of two of its current NC representatives,
> |> >
> |> >whereas a mail form Danny Younger, Chair of the DNSO/GA, rises a
> |> >similar question on the right to DNSO/BC Membership of the third
> |> >DNSO/BC representative to the NC and the current NC Chair,
> |> >
> |> >whereas I have a reconsideration procedure known to many under way
> |> >due to the disrespect of the DNSO/BC "issue management
> |> rules". The a
> |> >document on root management which is supposed to bind and harm my
> |> >business has been published in spite of my formal opposition and my
> |> >call on rules. This call was denied any value and I was told it
> |> >could only be considered shold I betray the BC Members who would
> |> >vote against that text.
> |> >
> |> >whereas the DNSO/BC charter says  "secretariat [that] will be
> |> >elected by and among its members for a period of two years at a
> |> >time. The secretariat will assure that all procedures are followed,
> |> >that all necessary means to conduct the business of the
> |> constituency
> |> >are available and that independent elections take place in due time
> |> >for the secretariat as well as for other officers. Its functions
> |> >will include:
> |> >(i) Reviewing applications for membership in the Business
> |> >Constituency and, where appropriate, referring these to the
> |> >Credentials Committee.
> |> >(ii) Carrying out the administrative functions associated with the
> |> >operations of the Business Constituency, including the arrangement
> |> >of meetings, preparation and publication of minutes, maintenance of
> |> >an appropriate mechanism suitable for facilitating contact and
> |> >dissemination of information among all members of the Business
> |> >Constituency and other secretariat functions required for the
> |> >adequate functioning of the Business Constituency.
> |> >(iii) Facilitating and, where appropriate, formulating membership
> |> >consensus on policy issues for the purpose of advising the Business
> |> >Constituency representatives on the Names Council."
> |> >
> |> >whereas this secretariat has never been elected while it
> |> recently changed.
> |> >
> |> >whereas the DNSO/BC charter says: "With the exception of the
> |> >election of the first secretariat, which will be elected by the end
> |> >of September 1999, candidates for election as secretariat will be
> |> >nominated at the same time as the candidates for the Names Council,
> |> >and also voted at the same time and according to the same procedure
> |> >where relevant. The largest number of votes will elect the
> |> >secretariat.
> |> >2. The secretariat will be a member of the Constituency,
> |> and not a person.
> |> >3. Business constituency members may put themselves forward as
> |> >candidates to assume secretariat functions either as individual
> |> >entities to assume all secretariat functions as set out
> |> hereinafter,
> |> >or jointly with other members with a view to allocating such
> |> >functions among them. Nominations for secretariat must include a
> |> >budget for running the secretariat."
> |> >
> |> >whereas the DNSO/BC charter says
> |> >"The secretariat shall use their best efforts to give small and
> |> >medium-sized enterprises an adequate voice in all Business
> |> >Constituency work processes. These efforts may include, but not be
> |> >limited to, the organization of democratic elections for
> |> >representatives of organizations of small and medium sized
> |> >businesses (SMEs) to sit on an SME Consultative Committee whose
> |> >advice shall be solicited on substantive policy work items"
> |> >
> |> >whereas I have asked several times, receiving response neither from
> |> >the Secretariat nor from the NC representatives, that such an SME a
> |> >committee be set-up and a Chair elected,
> |> >
> |> >whereas I have polled end of 2000 the other SME Members, created a
> |> >informal committee which  approved me as a temporary Chair,
> |> reported
> |> >this to the Secretariat and maintained sustained relations with the
> |> >SME I know of.
> |> >
> |> >whereas the charter is published with the mention "a revised
> |> >Business Constituency Charter is currently under discussion",
> |> >
> |> >whereas no debate is under on the matter I am aware of,
> |> >
> |> >whereas the DNSO/BC is entered in a voting period and only called
> |> >for NC Representative nominations and not for Secretariat nor fpr
> |> >SME Committee Chair.
> |> >
> |> >
> |> >
> |> >1. I consider I am entitled to speak for the SMEs and
> |> entitled to be
> |> >heard as per the BC Charter.
> |> >
> |> >2. the DNSO/BC tansparency is currently not by the standard of an
> |> >ICANN Constituency.
> |> >
> |> >3. The Credential Commitee was not to consider New.net as it is a
> |> >business of good standing operating for more than one year.
> |> The true
> |> >reason known to all for the denial is the opposition of New.net to
> |> >ICP-3 and to the controverted BC position document on the matter.
> |> >
> |> >4. The current elections underway call for urgent stability: three
> |> >NC current representatives and 20% of the Members are
> |> questioned, so
> |> >are questionned the legitimacy of the NC and the recent election of
> |> >a DNSO Director obtained by one vote.
> |> >
> |> >5. the whole DNSO/BC image and credibility are endangered what all
> |> >of the BC paying Members would suffer from if this is not quickly
> |> >and fairly attended.
> |> >
> |> >
> |> >I propose that we all agree on the common sense following points:
> |> >
> |> >a) the current Secretariat will be confirmed through the coming
> |> >vote. I nominate it as per the charter.
> |> >
> |> >b) by the same token the SME Committee (the SME paying
> |> Members) will
> |> >elect their Chair.
> |> >
> |> >c) the DNSO/BC Mailing list will be set-up to permit the Members to
> |> >relate together
> |> >
> |> >d) the letter and the spirit of the charter will apply to the NC
> |> >representatives election:
> |> >
> |> >   - not two representatives form the same geographical area
> |> >   - one representatives being an SME
> |> >   - not two prepresentatives from the same business trade
> |> >
> |> >e) for trade definition
> |> >
> |> >     -  Telcos will be accepted as one trade,
> |> >     -  business and IP protection organizations will be
> |> accepted as one trade
> |> >     -  the main trade of the Member will be considered
> |> >
> |> >f)  New.net will be accepted as an SME Member
> |> >
> |> >e) a working group will be set-up to quickly present a revised
> |> >charter to the Members and to the BoD.
> |> >
> |> >f) that revised charter will establish a DNSO/BC Chair as approved
> |> >in Melbourne. His first missions will be to restore
> |> internal harmony
> |> >and to develop outreach.
> |> >
> |> >Jefsey Morfin
> |> >DNSO/BC/SME Member
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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