Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #13
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, February 28 2000          Volume 01 : Number 013

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:51:27 -0000
From: Jean-Michel Becar <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Harald,

Yes of course, I wrote this Email earlier in the morning and I only though
afterwards I was writing something not enough open for our process. BTW I
like your idea to use the At Large membership system to subscribe to the ga.
Dear ga members could we go for a discussion on that.

Jean-Michel Becar
E.T.S.I.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 8:26 AM
To: Jean-Michel Becar; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
>Harald, Michael,
>
>But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface could
>be an example for the GA membership.
>But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail to the
>pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web site)
>would cost too much for the GA.
>So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer themselves and
>for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should provide
a
>domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain name
>holder is the same as the member.

and if they don't hold any domain names?
For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for the 
rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these days)

another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large membership 
necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
This would have a couple of advantages:

- - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
- - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that 
weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
- - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership

Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own 
membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large 
membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing 
to share at least some information.

But it's an idea.

                       Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:16:51 +0100 (MET)
From: Per Koelle <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> >Harald, Michael,
> >
> >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface could
> >be an example for the GA membership.
> 
> another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large membership 
> necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?

This is silly. There ARE 2 kinds of membership:
One for the At Large, and one for the DNSO GA !!!
If we dont have this separation the at-large will be able to vote
NINE members in the Board and CONTROLE the DNSO NC and therefore also
be able have their voice heard this way.

> This would have a couple of advantages:

Absolutely NO advantages for the DNSO.

> 
> - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
> - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that 
> weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
> - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
> 
> Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own 
> membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large 
> membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing 
> to share at least some information.
> 
> But it's an idea.
> 
>                        Harald
Regards
Per Kølle
DK Hostmaster A/S
e-mail: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:22:31 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

At 08:26 AM 2/28/00 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>[snip]
>another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large membership 
>necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
>This would have a couple of advantages:
>- ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
>-[snip]
>Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own 
>membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large 
>membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing 
>to share at least some information.
> But it's an idea.

	This seems to me a good proposal; it's a way to solve the verification
problem that piggybacks on money somebody *else* is spending.  I don't
think we need our own membership rules.  The one additional criterion for
GA membership -- that the person be interested in domain name policy --
will be self-enforcing, since people who aren't interested won't
participate.  A question, though:  ICANN is addressing the verification
problem in part by issuing passwords (so that they know that the person
voting or posting as [email-masked] really *is* [email-masked]).
Would we want to adopt that aspect of their process as well?  And would
they share their passwords file?

Jon

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:23:38 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

At 12:16 28.02.00 +0100, Per Koelle wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> > >Harald, Michael,
> > >
> > >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface 
> could
> > >be an example for the GA membership.
> >
> > another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large 
> membership
> > necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
>
>This is silly. There ARE 2 kinds of membership:
>One for the At Large, and one for the DNSO GA !!!
>If we dont have this separation the at-large will be able to vote
>NINE members in the Board and CONTROLE the DNSO NC and therefore also
>be able have their voice heard this way.

I wasn't thinking of merging them, but to say that the verification 
functions of the At Large (seeing that they're not onerous) were a 
prerequisite for being a GA member.

Any open organization that does voting can be controlled by any determined 
large group of people; if both the GA and the At-Large membership are open, 
and they're different, it's because of what people choose to join.

                   Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:47:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

I would be wary of hitching my cart to these oxen.  ICANN appears to view
the current 'no-fee' memberships as temporary.  What happens when they
start to charge?

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> >Harald, Michael,
> >
> >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface could
> >be an example for the GA membership.
> >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail to the
> >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web site)
> >would cost too much for the GA.
> >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer themselves and
> >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should provide a
> >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain name
> >holder is the same as the member.
> 
> and if they don't hold any domain names?
> For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for the 
> rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these days)
> 
> another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large membership 
> necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
> This would have a couple of advantages:
> 
> - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done once
> - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that 
> weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
> - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
> 
> Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our own 
> membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At Large 
> membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are willing 
> to share at least some information.
> 
> But it's an idea.
> 
>                        Harald
> 
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [email-masked]
> 
> 

- -- 

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:36:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Privacy Concerns for DNSO/ICANN Membership Was:Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Harald and all Assembly members,

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 12:16 28.02.00 +0100, Per Koelle wrote:
> >On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >
> > > At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
> > > >Harald, Michael,
> > > >
> > > >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web Interface
> > could
> > > >be an example for the GA membership.
> > >
> > > another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large
> > membership
> > > necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
> >
> >This is silly. There ARE 2 kinds of membership:
> >One for the At Large, and one for the DNSO GA !!!
> >If we dont have this separation the at-large will be able to vote
> >NINE members in the Board and CONTROLE the DNSO NC and therefore also
> >be able have their voice heard this way.
>
> I wasn't thinking of merging them, but to say that the verification
> functions of the At Large (seeing that they're not onerous) were a
> prerequisite for being a GA member.

  Well suppose some folks wish to join the DNSO but not the At large
ICANN membership.  Making that a prerequisite disenfranchises quite
a number of people or organizations unfairly.  In addition the ICANN
At Large has not "Official" guaranteed Privacy policy per se, which also
makes the ICANN At Large a bit of a concern for many.  In fact I see
no privacy certification on the ICANN membership site.  I only see
a very brief "FAQ" listing concerning Privacy.  That just isn't good enough...

>
>
> Any open organization that does voting can be controlled by any determined
> large group of people; if both the GA and the At-Large membership are open,
> and they're different, it's because of what people choose to join.

  Exactly.  So in this statement you have effectively contravened your
previous thought/statement above Harald...

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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:49:21 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

At 08:47 28.02.00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>I would be wary of hitching my cart to these oxen.  ICANN appears to view
>the current 'no-fee' memberships as temporary.  What happens when they
>start to charge?

unhitch? accept other kinds of verification in addition?

but remember - for better or worse, the GA is part of ICANN.
"we have met the enemy, and he is us".

            Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:23:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

You said originally, I think, "necessary and sufficient";
If you said "sufficient but not necessary" that's another vision.

Is the GA an overlapping or disjoint set with the DNSO constituencies? How
about the ASO, and PSO?

If it is overlapping, ie. if anyone in a DNSO/ASO/PSO group is [eligible
to be a] part of the GA, then it makes a lot of sense to say "if ICANN
member then GA member" without necessarily implying the reverse (if not,
then not). If there is any group of DNSO/ASO/PSO members who might be
ICANN members who would not be eligible to be GA members (is there?), then
the result should be different.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 08:47 28.02.00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >I would be wary of hitching my cart to these oxen.  ICANN appears to view
> >the current 'no-fee' memberships as temporary.  What happens when they
> >start to charge?
> 
> unhitch? accept other kinds of verification in addition?
> 

More likely to be stable longer.

> but remember - for better or worse, the GA is part of ICANN.
> "we have met the enemy, and he is us".

Speak for yourself! ;>
- -- 

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:28:23 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] www.dnso.org/archives.html

I note, for the record, that the inaccurate descriptions of the history of
filtering ("rules") for this list are still appearing on this page.

Who is in charge of this page?  Are there any plans to fix this at any
point?

This is not a trivial issue for me.

I do hope that the person in charge of this page has the courtesy to
respond.

- -- 

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:40:21 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] www.dnso.org/archives.html

On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 02:28:23PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> I note, for the record, that the inaccurate descriptions of the history of
> filtering ("rules") for this list are still appearing on this page.

Inaccurate how?

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll 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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 19:47:10 -0000
From: "Dr. Nii Quaynor" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

no. the ga is the "at-large" for the name space. it is different for the
civil member of the real at-large. nii.
****************************************************************************
**************
African Network Operators Group (AFNOG) 2000 Workshop, www.afnog.org,
University of Cape Town, South Africa, April 30 - May 5, 2000.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Cc: Jean-Michel Becar <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 7:23 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

> You said originally, I think, "necessary and sufficient";
> If you said "sufficient but not necessary" that's another vision.
>
> Is the GA an overlapping or disjoint set with the DNSO constituencies? How
> about the ASO, and PSO?
>
> If it is overlapping, ie. if anyone in a DNSO/ASO/PSO group is [eligible
> to be a] part of the GA, then it makes a lot of sense to say "if ICANN
> member then GA member" without necessarily implying the reverse (if not,
> then not). If there is any group of DNSO/ASO/PSO members who might be
> ICANN members who would not be eligible to be GA members (is there?), then
> the result should be different.
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > At 08:47 28.02.00 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > >I would be wary of hitching my cart to these oxen.  ICANN appears to
view
> > >the current 'no-fee' memberships as temporary.  What happens when they
> > >start to charge?
> >
> > unhitch? accept other kinds of verification in addition?
> >
>
> More likely to be stable longer.
>
> > but remember - for better or worse, the GA is part of ICANN.
> > "we have met the enemy, and he is us".
>
> Speak for yourself! ;>
> --
>
> 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
>
>

- --
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:00:20 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-full] Re: [ga] www.dnso.org/archives.html

The page describes as "GA with rules" all traffic on the GA list from its
inception.  My understanding is that during that period, the actual series
of events is -- more or less -- something like this.  I don't know the
exact dates.

Period 1: no filtering at all
Period 2: ad hoc secret filtering without any "rules" written down
anywhere
Period 3: no filtering while rule-set debated
Period 4: current rule-set

Whatever the exact state of affairs, as I understand matters it is not the
case that there were filtering "rules" at all relevant times from July 3,
1999.  Indeed, there were no "rules" until the current period.  

It seems to me uncontroversially good to accurately describe historical
events.  If my description above is not right, I'd be happy to have the
person/people who know put in the correct one -- with the relevant dates.

I don't think this is a very difficult work item.  I have mentioned it
before on this list, and I can't see why fixing it should take more than
10 minutes.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 02:28:23PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > I note, for the record, that the inaccurate descriptions of the history of
> > filtering ("rules") for this list are still appearing on this page.
> 
> Inaccurate how?
> 
> 

- -- 

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:04:49 -0500
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: UPDATE: ICANN-Cairo Remote Participation Details

I just sent the message below to all Cairo remote participation
preregistrants (and something similar to those planning to attend in
person).

For the benefit of those on this list who haven't yet registered but want to
receive such information.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Harvard Law School

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 2:59 PM
To: ICANN-Cairo Remote Participation Preregistrants
Subject: UPDATE: ICANN-Cairo Remote Participation Details

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because you preregistered to attend ICANN's
upcoming public meetings in Cairo, Egypt (March 7-10) via webcast.

To better plan which sessions to attend, you may find it helpful to review
the schedule ICANN has recently posted at
<http://www.icann.org/cairo2000/cairo-details.htm#schedule>.  That page also
links to a number of relevant documents to be discussed in ICANN's Cairo
meetings, in addition to public comment spaces on major agenda items.

We intend to make available complete archives of each day's meetings at the
conclusion of each day; go to <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cairo> to
access such archives, to join the webcast, and to preregister others to
attend in person or remotely.

Access to the remote participation system requires a 28.8kbps or faster
modem, with best access over 56k or faster connections.  Access to the live
audio and video feeds requires the RealPlayer, version 5.0 or later (G2 or
later preferred), available for free from
<http://www.real.com/products/player>.  Finally, access to the live chat
area requires a JAVA-capable browser (IE or Netscape version 3 or later) or
a dedicated IRC client.

Finally, if you're not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list, you
may find it helpful to join in order to receive important future
announcements from ICANN.  See
<http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcements.htm> for instructions.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:15:35 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-full] Re: [ga] www.dnso.org/archives.html

On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 03:00:20PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> The page describes as "GA with rules" all traffic on the GA list from its
> inception.  My understanding is that during that period, the actual series
> of events is -- more or less -- something like this.  I don't know the
> exact dates.
> 
> Period 1: no filtering at all

A fairly short period of time -- it is clear that Jeff Williams was 
filtered out partway through the first archive.  So filtering applies 
to every archive.

> Period 2: ad hoc secret filtering without any "rules" written down
> anywhere
> Period 3: no filtering while rule-set debated
> Period 4: current rule-set
> 
> Whatever the exact state of affairs, as I understand matters it is not the
> case that there were filtering "rules" at all relevant times from July 3,
> 1999.  Indeed, there were no "rules" until the current period.  

Filtering has been in place through at least part of the period for 
every one of those archives.  We can quibble over the meaning of the 
term "rules" -- certainly one possible use of the term is as a synonym 
for "filters", but that really is a quibble.  

> It seems to me uncontroversially good to accurately describe historical
> events.  If my description above is not right, I'd be happy to have the
> person/people who know put in the correct one -- with the relevant dates.
> 
> I don't think this is a very difficult work item.

Modulo the quibble, the description is completely accurate as it is --
there have been filters applied to every one of the archives except the
one explicitly notated as having "no rules".

In my opinion "the quibble" is petty beyond redemption -- there are 
several other places where the English isn't perfectly idiomatic, and 
given that there are lots of non-native english speakers who look at 
the site, that seems only fair.

Finding the exact dates for when the various filters have been applied
is probably impossible.

>  I have mentioned it
> before on this list, and I can't see why fixing it should take more than
> 10 minutes.

It ain't broken.  It is exactly accurate.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll 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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:17:01 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

I agree with Michael on this, not specifically because of the membership
 fees, but for a more general concern on the same subject: it will be 
unhealthy to define the GA Membership as a "subset" of the ICANN AtLarge
, at least in principle.

OTOH, I agree with Harald that it will be nice to use ICANN's work on 
identity verification for the GA. But this only means that we accept 
ICANN's AtLarge members without further verification.

We should leave the door open to the possibility that somebody would 
like to be a GA Member without being an ICANN Member (why one should be 
willing to do that, it escapes me, but the problem exists in principle).

In summary, individuals that want to join the GA as members can do so. 
If they are already ICANN Members, they are accepted without 
verification, if they don't, some "proof of existence" may be required.

BTW, it seems obvious to me that the additional cost related to the 
verification will be borne by the incumbent.

Best regards
Roberto

>I would be wary of hitching my cart to these oxen.  ICANN appears to 
view
>the current 'no-fee' memberships as temporary.  What happens when they
>start to charge?
>
>
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>> At 05:44 28.02.00 +0000, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:
>> >Harald, Michael,
>> >
>> >But the way the At Large members is registered via this Web 
Interface could
>> >be an example for the GA membership.
>> >But the way the proof of identity is done (by sending a postal mail 
to the
>> >pysical address with a PIN code to be used for accessing to the web 
site)
>> >would cost too much for the GA.
>> >So why not to set up a web site where people can registrer 
themselves and
>> >for the proof of identity and interest in the GA DNSO, they should 
provide a
>> >domain name that can be verified with a whois request if the domain 
name
>> >holder is the same as the member.
>> 
>> and if they don't hold any domain names?
>> For those that do, it's possible - but we'll have to do something for
 the 
>> rest. (And, of course, domain names can cost down to USD 10 these 
days)
>> 
>> another idea I had - what if we considered an activated At Large 
membership 
>> necessary and sufficient for voting rights in the GA?
>> This would have a couple of advantages:
>> 
>> - ICANN has to do the verification work anyway, so it's only done 
once
>> - More active use of the ICANN membership code gives more chance that
 
>> weaknesses in the system will be found and corrected
>> - It's a drive (a small one) for At Large membership
>> 
>> Of course, this leaves us without the power to impose or enforce our 
own 
>> membership rules, requires people to be willing to sign up for At 
Large 
>> membership, and requires that the people running the At Large are 
willing 
>> to share at least some information.
>> 
>> But it's an idea.
>> 
>>                        Harald
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
>> [email-masked]
>> 
>> 
>
>-- 
>
>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
>
>
>
>
- --
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 21:23:07 +0100 (MET)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Is ICANN replacing the ga with its new site=?iso-8859-1?Q?=3F?=

Alf,

You wrote:
>We got to get our membership database in shape. Even if the membership 
is
>open to anyone. A distribution list is not a membership database. The 
ga
>distribution list should be produced from the membership database.
>

In fact, I believe the two are not necessarily related.

I think that a member may elect to participate to the GA-list, and vice-
versa we may accept contributions to the GA-List by non-members.

Roberto
- --
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:03:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Kelsey <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Proposal: WWW / slashdot

Roberto Gaetano writes:
 > In summary, individuals that want to join the GA as members can do so. 
 > If they are already ICANN Members, they are accepted without 
 > verification, if they don't, some "proof of existence" may be required.

I think this is a very succinct statement of the best way to operate the
DNSO GA.  Obviously, there will be some overlap with the ICANN at-large
membership, but there will undoubtedly be people who only want to join
the DNSO GA.

On the other hand, making the applicant bear the costs of proof of
identity seems doubtful until you have a specific proposal for what the
proof of identity consists of.  At the point where we can agree on what
it means to prove your identity in the DNSO GA as opposed to the ICANN
at-large, then we can discuss who bears the cost.  We may even have a
general DNSO budget to draw upon?

Maybe we can offer several ways to prove identity sufficient to the work
of the DNSO GA, one of which is ICANN at-large membership.  Others might
include previous proposals, such as validated PKI certificate issued by
a CA which requires physical proof of identity, and other proposals to
be decided upon.

/Joe
- --
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:29:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-full] Re: [ga] www.dnso.org/archives.html

I find your note puzzling.  In a few minutes you already did a better job
than what's up there-then say what's up there  can't reasonably be
improved on.  Then you call it "exactly" accurate!

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 03:00:20PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> > The page describes as "GA with rules" all traffic on the GA list from its
> > inception.  My understanding is that during that period, the actual series
> > of events is -- more or less -- something like this.  I don't know the
> > exact dates.
> > 
> > Period 1: no filtering at all
> 
> A fairly short period of time -- it is clear that Jeff Williams was 
> filtered out partway through the first archive.  So filtering applies 
> to every archive.
> 

I am perfectly content to have the description of an archive note that at
some defined point during it the rules changed.  Or even semi-defined.

> > Period 2: ad hoc secret filtering without any "rules" written down
> > anywhere
> > Period 3: no filtering while rule-set debated
> > Period 4: current rule-set
> > 
> > Whatever the exact state of affairs, as I understand matters it is not the
> > case that there were filtering "rules" at all relevant times from July 3,
> > 1999.  Indeed, there were no "rules" until the current period.  
> 
> Filtering has been in place through at least part of the period for 
> every one of those archives.  We can quibble over the meaning of the 
> term "rules" -- certainly one possible use of the term is as a synonym 
> for "filters", but that really is a quibble.  
> 

Sounds reasonable here....so long as the change is acknowledged...

> > It seems to me uncontroversially good to accurately describe historical
> > events.  If my description above is not right, I'd be happy to have the
> > person/people who know put in the correct one -- with the relevant dates.
> > 
> > I don't think this is a very difficult work item.
> 
> Modulo the quibble, the description is completely accurate as it is --

...but does not sound reasonable here.

> there have been filters applied to every one of the archives except the
> one explicitly notated as having "no rules".
> 

One point lost is that the status quo ante was no rules.  This is an
important historical point.

The other point lost is that whatever you wish to call the filtering which
happened before the current period, it was not using the same ruleset as
is currently used.  That point, to put it most charitably, is elided in
the current web page.

I don't find either of these trivial, and it seems relevant to any history
of the DNSO.

> In my opinion "the quibble" is petty beyond redemption -- there are 
> several other places where the English isn't perfectly idiomatic, and 
> given that there are lots of non-native english speakers who look at 
> the site, that seems only fair.
> 

Huh?  This is an *easy* fix.

> Finding the exact dates for when the various filters have been applied
> is probably impossible.
> 

I suspect the people who did it could pinpoint it, at least to within a
week, if they wanted it.

> >  I have mentioned it
> > before on this list, and I can't see why fixing it should take more than
> > 10 minutes.
> 
> It ain't broken.  It is exactly accurate.
> 
> 

"Exactly"?  Having yourself described how this is not the case, I find
this remark utterly Orwellian.

- -- 

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #13
***********************