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

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

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