Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #42
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 1 2000           Volume 01 : Number 042

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

Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:01:12 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)

http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1996q1/0482.html

I would recommend EVERYONE on the GA mailing list take a look at this 
document from Jon Postel of IANA. This is the original "new TLD plan", and 
documents many things -

  legal and financial umbrella of the Internet Society (ISOC)
  open competition in domain name registration in the iTLDs
  multiple registries to operate cooperatively and fairly
  creation of new iTLDs in a fair and useful fashion
  5 new registries to be created in 1996
  fifteen iTLDs will be created per year for the next five years

There are also many trivia items in this document - the infamous check 
(6.4.4), timetable for introducing new TLDs (6.9.4), the original ad hoc 
committee (5.5), introducing new registries for iTLDs and additional iTLDs 
names (1.6), etc. So now when you hear someone say they followed the 
guidelines laid out by IANA, this is one of the documents they are 
referring to.

Obviously the scenery has changed a little, IANA is now ICANN, etc., but 
most of the general concepts are still valid. Hopefully, we can use what we 
can find consensus on, and move on.

FYI - this is what Dave Crocker is referring to as the "rogue effort".

- --
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:01:12 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)

http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1996q1/0482.html

I would recommend EVERYONE on the GA mailing list take a look at this 
document from Jon Postel of IANA. This is the original "new TLD plan", and 
documents many things -

  legal and financial umbrella of the Internet Society (ISOC)
  open competition in domain name registration in the iTLDs
  multiple registries to operate cooperatively and fairly
  creation of new iTLDs in a fair and useful fashion
  5 new registries to be created in 1996
  fifteen iTLDs will be created per year for the next five years

There are also many trivia items in this document - the infamous check 
(6.4.4), timetable for introducing new TLDs (6.9.4), the original ad hoc 
committee (5.5), introducing new registries for iTLDs and additional iTLDs 
names (1.6), etc. So now when you hear someone say they followed the 
guidelines laid out by IANA, this is one of the documents they are 
referring to.

Obviously the scenery has changed a little, IANA is now ICANN, etc., but 
most of the general concepts are still valid. Hopefully, we can use what we 
can find consensus on, and move on.

FYI - this is what Dave Crocker is referring to as the "rogue effort".

- --
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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:01:12 -0800
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [TLD History] RANDOM DRAFT 42-B - Delegation of International Top Level Domains (iTLDs)

http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom/1996q1/0482.html

I would recommend EVERYONE on the GA mailing list take a look at this 
document from Jon Postel of IANA. This is the original "new TLD plan", and 
documents many things -

  legal and financial umbrella of the Internet Society (ISOC)
  open competition in domain name registration in the iTLDs
  multiple registries to operate cooperatively and fairly
  creation of new iTLDs in a fair and useful fashion
  5 new registries to be created in 1996
  fifteen iTLDs will be created per year for the next five years

There are also many trivia items in this document - the infamous check 
(6.4.4), timetable for introducing new TLDs (6.9.4), the original ad hoc 
committee (5.5), introducing new registries for iTLDs and additional iTLDs 
names (1.6), etc. So now when you hear someone say they followed the 
guidelines laid out by IANA, this is one of the documents they are 
referring to.

Obviously the scenery has changed a little, IANA is now ICANN, etc., but 
most of the general concepts are still valid. Hopefully, we can use what we 
can find consensus on, and move on.

FYI - this is what Dave Crocker is referring to as the "rogue effort".

- --
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:18:39 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Listadmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NCtelecon today, March 31th, agenda and documents

[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]

[ from http://www.dnso/org/dnso/notes/20000331.NCtelecon-agenda.html]

ICANN/DNSO

       DNSO Names Council Teleconference on March 31th, 2000 - agenda
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 31th, 2000.

Date, time, phones and webcast

  1. The Names Council teleconference will be held on March 31th at the
     following time:

         ------------------------------------------------------------
         NC Teleconference, March 31th, 2000, 2 hours, begins:
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         13:30
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         California, USA                            UTC-8+0DST   5:30
         Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+0DST   7:30
         Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+0DST   8:30
         Ottawa, Canada                             UTC-5+0DST   8:30
         Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST   9:30
         Montevideo, Uruguay                        UTC-3+0DST  10:30
         Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  10:30
         Nouakchott, Mauritania                     UTC+0+0DST  13:30
         Dublin, Ireland                            UTC+0+1DST  14:30
         Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:30
         Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:30
         Madrid, Spain                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:30
         Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:30
         Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:30
         Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  22:30
         Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
         Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  23:00
         ------------------------------------------------------------
         For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

  2. Ken Stubbs is kindly providing the teleconference bridge

  3. The NC will not be webcast due to budget constraints. To listen to the
     NC telecon, please call the US phone number:

      Conference ID#: 0003-270362
      Chairperson:  Ken Stubbs
      Call In #: +1-213-683-8900

     A restricted list of parties that are able to speak was created
     (includes all attending Names Council members and ICANN staff), all
     others to be placed on a listen only mode.

  4. Remote participants to the open NC meeting may send questions to
     [email-masked]

Agenda and related documents

Ken Stubbs will be chairing the NC teleconference.

  A. the discussion and adoption of the budget proposal sent to you for your
     perusal.
        o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00509.html, by Ken
          Stubbs
        o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00523.html, by
          Elisabeth Porteneuve
        o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00524.html, by
          Elisabeth Porteneuve
        o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000308.NCcairo-minutes.html,
          Cairo NC minutes
  B. discussion of our future role and relationship with the board and
     working groups
  C. future of working groups and review of the current working group
     process
        o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00525.html,
          discussion on the progress that the WG-B and WG-C reports will
          follow, by Kathryn Kleiman
  D. any other relevent items you all can think of
        o http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00502.html,
          request to the NC for selection of 2 individuals to the
          Independent Review Nominating Committee by Andrew McLaughlin

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

                 Information from:  © DNSO Names Council

- --
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: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 04:41:56 +0930
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Admin] Posting limits

I have to remind the participants of Roberto's earlier announcement of
a limit of 5 messages per participant per day.

Yesterday (Mar 30), William Walsh had 13, Simon Higgs had 11, and 
Christopher Ambler had 13.

I am happy to see that the tone of messages has calmed down a bit, but
I have to admit that I see the value of the continued discussion as very low.

And the volume of it is WAY too high.
Please throttle your postings, gentlemen.

                   Harald T. Alvestrand
                    List moderator, GA

- --
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:31:21 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Posting limits

Who set a posting limit? I don't recall seeing a limit. When did we vote on
it?

- --
Christopher Ambler
[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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:59:05 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Posting limits

Chris and all assembly members,

  We didn't vote on it.  It is something that Harald and Roberto
are attempting to unilaterally and illegitimately impose....

Christopher Ambler wrote:

> Who set a posting limit? I don't recall seeing a limit. When did we vote on
> it?
>
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> [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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:10:27 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs

All assembly members,

  FYI, discussion in response to NC meeting held earlier today on
New TLD's from the Noncom constituency:
================================
Subject:  Re: NCDNHC proposed resolution on famous names and new TLDs
        Date:  Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:52:50 -0800
       From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
 Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
         To: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
         CC:  James Love <[email-masked]>, "Kevin J. Connolly"
<[email-masked]>,
             [email-masked]
  References:
             1 , 2

Harald and all,

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 09:11 29.03.00 -0500, James Love wrote:
> >But the deal struck with .web might be quite different than what
> >usedcars or .union might want to agree to, and for good reason.  This

> >is, after, all, the test bed period.  Why lock every into the same
deal
> >right off the bat, when a one size fits all might not fit very well?
> This makes sense to me.
>
> *In the testbed period*, make sure the new TLDs conform to one of a
very
> small set of ways to handle the famous-marks problem, ranging from a
list
> without explicit bounds to a limited-scope TLD with no list at all.

  This could be achieved through the use of "Chartered TLD's" and a
good suggestion IMHO.  However a precedent could be set doing this
where all new TLD's would be "Chartered TLD's".  This however does
not address the shared and non-shared issues for new TLD or multiple
shared registries.

>
>
> Also, sunrise clause (the list is used in the month prior to registry
> opening, to give those on the list first shot) is a better stance from
a
> free-speech viewpoint, since it gives no protection to marks declared
> famous after the registry opens for general use, so it cannot be used
as a
> tool to stifle speech after the fact.

  Nor should it be used as a tool before the fact either.  Good point
here
as well Harald.

>
>
>                     Harald
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> [email-masked]
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as:
[email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[email-masked]

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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:28:13 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC meeting 03/31/00 and Ken Stubbs budget proposal for the DNSO

All assembly members,

  I don't know why this was posted to the NCDNHC list and not the
DNSO GA list but here it is anyway:
=======================================
Subject:
            Re: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
       Date:
            Sat, 1 Apr 2000 00:35:19 +0800
      From:
            "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
        To:
            "James Love" <[email-masked]>, "NCDNHC"
<[email-masked]>
 References:
            1

Dear Members,

Just finishing NC teleconference...

The whole subject of that was "MONEY".
=====================================
I. 'Budget' proposal, 95,500 USD made by Ken.
II. How to collect money among the constituency.
=====================================
There have been two voting processes on both I and II.
Due to Kathy's early leave and Zakaria's absense,
I should cast three votes, one for Kathy, one for Zakaria and one for
myself.

I. Whether we are going to recognise it or not.

Result:
Three Abstension(YJ, Kathy and Zakaria),
The other 14 Yes, One Absence.

II. How to implemet it.
Moved by Roger, member of gTLD.
Couldn't quite remember them completely,though.
    1) Equally divided
    2) Cooperatively work among or within the constituencies
    3) Cooperatively work with GA
    4) ICANN staff help for more voluntary fund-raising.

Result:
Three Abstension under the remarks favorable with 2,3, and 4
but not agreeable with 1(YJ, Kathy and Zakaria)
The other 14 Yes, One absence.

The main issue we have to visit within the constituency is
"equal right", "equal vote" and "equal responsibility" have been
discussed
during the meeting.

We really have to come up with solid position on this.
First of all, to put some weight to our position in the future, sliding
scale,
we have to keep our promise made in LA,
which might be revisited whether it was a committement or not.

I do think it was commitment.
So far, we have 2,150 USD or so.

Looking forward to your further cooperation
which will make it reach 5,000 USD.....

Regards,

YJ

PS: Ken's proposal attached.
============================================================
Assumptions and related costs are included below: (Note: all costs are
in
US$)

Web Hosting & Connectivity:

Machines:  Estimated Cost = $5000

Connectivity  = ICANN will provide connectivity

                                                       Total web hosting
&
Connectivity
$ 5,000

Teleconferences:

Estimate 12 teleconferences per year x 2 hours x 20 persons     (est.
$600/teleconference)                                       7,200

Salaries:

One full time Names Council Staff person to be located physically in the

ICANN offices in Marina Del Rey California

 Salary cost (including payroll taxes & insurance)
55,000

Office expenses (Including telephone etc)        (estimate at $900
US/month)
$10,800

Office set up  (i.e. equipment purchases - computer, acctg software etc.
)
3,000

                                    Total Office expenses
13,800

Travel to 3 meetings/year for 4 days @$2,500/meeting for above mentioned

staff                                                     7,500

Incidentals & miscellaneous unforeseen costs (contingency
15,000

            Total not counting ICANN Meeting costs
$91,500

Suggestion for handling meeting costs...

For single per-ICANN meeting fee (<$1,000), the NC would be able to
create
an
audio archive of the following meetings:
4,000

- - NC
     - GA
     - constituencies
     - Working Groups

An audio tape would be made for each meeting, later to be digitized and
posted on a real audio source website. This would satisfy the by-law
requirements
(i checked with the ICANN staff) and significantly reduce our budget for

meeting broadcasts.

Total overall   including contingency reserve
$95,500

> This is a missive I sent yesterday to the ABA antitrust list.
> Jamie
>
> ------------------
> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:13:15 -0500
> From: James Love <[email-masked]>
> To: ABA Antrtrust List <[email-masked]>
> Subject: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
>
> This is a question about antitrust actions involving private sector
> "self governance" organizations.
>
> ICANN is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.  It
is
> a California Non-Profit organization, and is operating under a
> memorandum of understanding with the US Department of Commerce that
> might be terminated as early as this year (or might not, of course, if

> DOC decides to extend it).
>
> ICANN now controls the main root server for the Internet DNS system,
the
> thing that permits people to use names like www.usdoj.gov or
www.ftc.gov
> instead of numbers like 149.101.10.32 or 164.62.7.15.
>
> The names are organized in a series of domains.  The top level domain
> (TLD) is the last name in the string, such as .com, .org, .gov or .uk.

> The next one is the second level domain, or SLD, and so on.  NTIA is
the
> third level domain in ntia.doc.gov.
>
> Right now there are 244 2 digit country code top level domains
(ccTLDs)
> like .uk, .fr and .jp, and seven so called "generic" top level domains

> (gTLDs), out of the country code space, of which only three are widely

> available, .com, .net and .org.  All three of the generally available
> gTLDs are manged by NSI, a firm that was recently sold for about $22
> billion.
>
> While several country TLDs have tried to compete against NSI for
> registering domains, for the most part the action is in .com, a single

> TLD.  IMO, this is because ccTLDs like .to, .de, .au etc are not
> particularly well known,  intuitive or appealing.  The 2 letter limit
> for ccTLDs is a also severe constraint.  (There are a few exceptions,
of
> course, like the .fm ccTLD which is marketed to fm radio stations, for

> example).
>
> For the public, the .com space is very overcrowded.  People are paying

> huge sums to buy the rapidly dimminishing remaing regular names on the

> com space, and people apparently pay millions for generic names.
MSNBC
> reported today that someone paid $38 million for cool.com.  I don't
know
> if this is a bona fide offer or not, but there are surly lots of high
> priced sales, and many businesses, NGOs and individuals cannot buy the

> names they want from .com, .net or .org.
>
> Technically, the TLD space could be huge, perhaps as large as a
million
> TLDs with today's technology, and who knows how large later.
>
> While anyone can set up a computer to run a TLD registry, very few
> people will be able to find it, unless ICANN includes the TLD in the
> main root.
>
> Several years ago, the pre-ICANN authority proposed to create 150 new
> TLDs, run by 50 new NSI competitors.  The main thing that stopped this

> was the (big) trademark lobby.  There are also non-trivial but
> resolvable issues concerning the policies associated with new TLDs.
>
> Now ICANN is considering once again to expand the root, first with a 6

> to 10 TLD testbest, and once that is done, perhaps a much larger
> expansion.  We have called for the addition of thousand of new TLDs.
> There is much demand for new TLDs.
>
> Within the proposed new TLD space would be lots of types of new TLDs.
> Some would be .com clones, like .inc, .biz, .web, .zone, .store.
.firm,
> mall, etc.  Others would be particular to types of activity, such as
> software, .consultant, .sex, .usedcars, .flowers or .drugstore.  And
> this is just scratching the surface.  There would also be a variety of

> noncommercial TLDs, such as .union, .sucks, or .isnotfair, and lots of

> different management styles, some unrestricted and some restricted.
For
> example, .union might be controlled by labor unions, or .usbank might
be
> restricted to FDIC insured bands (an actual proposal by an FDIC
> official).
>
> All of this is being held up by a handful of big corporate trademark
> lawyers, who have generally opposed adding new commerical TLDs.  These

> by and large are firms that already have staked out or taken various
> domains like att.com, mattel.com, pepsi.com, etc, and they don't want
to
> have to fight to protect their trademark name in thousands of new
TLDs.
>
> These trademark groups are saying they will block any new TLDs unless
> their demands are met.  One current one is to create an open ended
list
> of "famous" names that would be reserved on new TLDs.  There are
various
> issues in these negotations, including such items as how many uses of
a
> "string" (use of a name) would be reserved.  For example, would
> cokevpepsi.comparison be blocked?   Would boeing.union be reserved for

> boeing?  Would Exxon.sucks be reserved for Exxon?   (There may be some

> openess to consider non-commercial exceptions).
>
> There is no legal basis for this type of reservation of famous
> trademarks in the US or in nearly any country, and many of the
proposed
> reservations don't make any sense.  For example, why would ford motor
> company be able to reserve ford.flowers, ford.plumbing or even
> ford.foundation (not to mention ford.modeling)?  Why would one not
have
> lotus.cars, lotus.flowers and lotus.software, one ICANN participant
> asked?
>
> The trademark lobby is seeking to "own" a string across all TLD space
on
> the Internet, and of course, you can't blame them for trying.  But
they
> are seeking this not in a national legislature or through a treaty,
but
> through ICANN's control of the Internet's root.
>
> The failure to expand the root is now beginning to have serious
> anticompetive consequences, because new entrants are disadvantaged, by

> not having very much space to find domains.  This is an artificial
> regulatory scaricity, but largely by a private sector self regulation
> body.
>
> Would there be antitrust grounds to challenge a decision by ICANN to
> place restrictions of the use of famous names?
>
>  Jamie
>
>
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: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 10:37:36 +1000
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 02:46 PM 3/30/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>Jon wanted to reach consensus, publish same as RFC, and enact. Nothing

An accurate summary.

And quite different from using "RFC process" as a term referring to some 
sort of established formal process.  The essential point is developing 
community consensus.  Documenting it through publication of an RFC is 
entirely secondary.

> > IANA created and administered the DNS and its TLDs from the start of the
> > DNS, long before NSF was involved.
> >
> > There is a continuing failure to distinguish between funding and
> > authority.  They are quite separate things.
>
>You're making my point for me, then. NSF funded, IANA had authority.
>They may or may not be related.

That statement is at variance with the earlier, simple and firm claim that 
NSF "granted" authority to IANA.

To repeat:  NSF involvement in DNS matters came about long, long after IANA 
initiated DNS operations.  That involvement occurred when there was a 
desire to move DNS root and gTLD operations from SRI to NSI.  SRI was the 
original administrator, and did the job for roughly 8 years.  I believe, 
however, they had done it under umbrella funding.  The operation grew large 
enough to warrant independent funding and NSF was, at that point, the 
primary source of US government funds for on-going Internet work.  So they 
were the natural place to seek the funds from.

In a very real sense, NSF's "authority" to provide the funding of this 
activity came from IANA.

What makes the debate about these details peculiar is that those who 
participated in these events are having to keep correcting the tenacious 
misunderstandings of those who had no involvement or even any meaningful 
Internet presence.

At 07:31 PM 3/30/00 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >From the declaration of George Strawn in one of the PGMedia v. NSI cases:

Ahh, yes.  George.

As folks conveniently dismiss the authority basis for the IAHC, gTLD-MoU, 
and POC/Core, they might want to remember that besides having IANA and ISOC 
support, the IAHC had NSF's George Strawn as a member...

So, for those who are so insistent that NSF was the definitive source of 
authority...

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

- --
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:46:30 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

> As folks conveniently dismiss the authority basis for the IAHC, gTLD-MoU,
> and POC/Core, they might want to remember that besides having IANA and
ISOC
> support, the IAHC had NSF's George Strawn as a member...

Being a member of the IAHC has absolutely no bearing with giving it
authority from the NSF. The IAHC had members from many entities, but
those members went to great length to make it clear that they were
individuals, and did not represent the entity for which they worked.
There was no NSF publication either for or against the IAHC, as I
recall.

- --
Christopher Ambler
[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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:35:02 -0800 (PST)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01-Apr-2000 Dave Crocker wrote:
> As folks conveniently dismiss the authority basis for the IAHC, gTLD-MoU, 
> and POC/Core, they might want to remember that besides having IANA and ISOC 
> support, the IAHC had NSF's George Strawn as a member...

And the USG and NSF have gone so far as to place a disclaimer on the website
that states that his participation was strictly in a personal capacity and not
representative of the NSF or the USG.

- - --
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
http://userfriendly.com/
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE45VJG8zLmV94Pz+IRAmKGAJoCSJN9U2digeGvxZY7U+KPUO7PJQCgwcSR
RgooQ6Rfyg6Q67b+8eHuH4c=
=1fEJ
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
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: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 13:46:33 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] About GA membership again......

At 16:29 30/03/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
Can somebody
>please explain why individuals (not connected to any organization in a DNSO
>constituency) should be represented with voting rights in DNSO GA?
>
>(I may step into a can-of-worms her, but I just want to hear the arguments,
>and perhaps be convinced to change my mind....)
>

The arguments have been presented many times, but here we go again...
Typical Individual Domain Name Owners (and I do not mean ccTLD, IPC or
would-be registrars, who happen to have a domain of their own as well) have
their own "stake" in the DNS, which is their Domain, nothing more, nothing
less.
They are a constituency because of this common interest.
 
They are not represented in the constituencies on the NC, because the
interim ICANN Board so far  has refused to consider their petition to be
recognized as a constituency.
Therefore, their only way to be heard in the DNSO and have some effect on
policy that is going to affect them,  is through their membership of the GA. 
(Of course they will end up frustrated, because the NC can freely ignore
the GA) 

Individuals who do not hold Domain Names, but who still have an interest in
the ICANN governance process, find their place in the ICANN at-large
membership along with everybody else who cares to be there.  
Unless major changes are effected in the bylaws regarding the powers of
this at-large membership to freely elect its representatives to the Board,
this at-large membership looks like being there for decorative purposes only.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

- --
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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:09:49 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 01:46:33PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
[...]
> They are not represented in the constituencies on the NC, because the
> interim ICANN Board so far  has refused to consider their petition to be
> recognized as a constituency.

You are confusing your "cyberspace association/IDNO" with "individual
domain name owners" in general.  Individual domain name owners, as a
potential constituency, have not presented a petition to ICANN.  Your
organization does not credibly represent individual domain name owners.

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #42
***********************