Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #48
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, April 4 2000            Volume 01 : Number 048

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

Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:23:51 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Listadmin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconference 31 March 2000, minutes

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

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

ICANN/DNSO

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

March 31th, 2000.

Proposed agenda and related documents:

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

List of attendees:

   Dennis Jennings         ccTLD          absent
   Patricio Poblete        ccTLD
   Philip Sheppard         Business
   Masanobu Katoh          Business
   Theresa Swinehart       Business       absent, proxy to Katoh
   Hirofumi Hotta          ISPCP
   Tony Harris             ISPCP          arrived in late
   Michael Schneider       ISPCP          arrived in late
   Erica Roberts           Registrars
   Ken Stubbs              Registrars
   Paul Kane               Registrars
   Roger Cochetti          gTLD
   Caroline Chicoine       IP
   Axel Aus der Muhlen     IP
   Guillermo Carey         IP
   Youn Jung Park          NCDNH
   Kathryn Kleiman         NCDNH          left in the middle, proxy to YJP
   Zakaria Amar            NCDNH          absent, proxy to YJP
   Louis Touton            ICANN Legal Counselor
   Elisabeth Porteneuve    DNSO Secretariat

Chair Ken Stubbs (Registrars)

Quorum present
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda

  A. Comments of minutes from the last NC meeting in Cairo, on March 8th,
     see
        o http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000308.NCcairo-minutes.html,
          Cairo NC minutes

     Kathryn Kleiman clarify the difference between WG-C and WG-B status as
     in Cairo, the former is the consensus report, the latter the status
     report, they are not on the same schedule. In Cairo the NC gave 4 weeks
     to the WG-B to come with the consensus report. Both reports were
     published on the dnso.org website on March 21th:
        o 21 March 2000 Working Group B status report to the Names Council,
          by Michael Palage
        o 21 March 2000 Working Group C consensus report to the Names
          Council, by Jonathan Weinberg
     The NC is seeking public comment on the recommendations of WG-C with a
     deadline of four weeks. After this time the NC will make a decision on
     the endoresement of these recommendations, and forward them to the
     ICANN Board no later than April 20th. The call for comments will be
     sent out by Elisabeth Porteneuve shortly.

  B. The discussion and adoption of the DNSO budget proposal

     See http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00509.html, by Ken
     Stubbs

       1. Roger Cochetti

          The NC work with the significant consequences needs adequate
          funding, there is a minimal level of expenses for a legitimate
          body to exists. With regards to the level of proposed fees between
          $US 15000 and 35000, per constituency for year 2000 the lower
          amount when spread out over the number of members in each
          constituency should be acceptable, and in many cases is still less
          than the airfares to one of ICANN meetings for one constituency
          member. We need to create an institution publicly accountable and
          preserve the low cost.

       2. Masanobu Katoh

          We need to be realistic, the fees are expected from 7
          constituencies, which whould imply the committment in liability to
          such expenses.

       3. Ken Stubbs

          From Registrars point of view, it is important to send a message
          to ICANN that the structure was set up in such a way that it can
          hardly function.

       4. Patricio Poblete

          With regards to the ICANN budget of $US 1.5 millions the DNSO
          numbers are not significant, but the problem lies with the
          multiple level of constributions. The larger the number the more
          hassle, it would be preferable to have one contribution to ICANN.

       5. Ken Stubbs

          We need to put in place a commitee to develop the methodology for
          the funding mechanism in the future, but we cannot leave the
          meeting today without decision.

       6. Roger Cochetti

          There are two principles that will be affected by the DNSO budget,
          accountability and the autonomy. The costs in these budgets
          reflect the level of accountability. The same work could be done
          in a fraction of time by Louis Touton in Marina del Rey, but it
          would not be accountable. If we want a DNSO that is highly
          accountable and independent from the ICANN Board, then will have
          to pay for it, you cannot have it both ways.

       7. Philip Sheppard

          There is a difference between the NC functionning
          administratively, and all the work necessary for the Working
          Groups and the GA. The latter are providig good for the whole
          ICANN, it would be unfair to have the secretariat founded only by
          the Constituencies. There is a responsability.

       8. Erica Roberts

          My understanding is that the WGs has been set up to report to the
          NC, and therefore we are responsible for them. There are two
          separate questions: look on the size of budget and find out how to
          get revenus into it. The proposed budget is very conservative, do
          we have any objections to the size of budget ?

       9. Ken Stubbs

          It is a good approach. My proposal is handling the meeting cost in
          decreasing manner, we get to one seventh of the webcast costs. The
          audio archives of all meetings can be used, and are the legitimate
          substitute for the webcast dissimination.

      10. Elisabeth Porteneuve

          The main difficulty for a budget is not the amount, less than 5
          percent of ICANN budget, but the layered system. Another important
          item is that the DNSO's members are providing 90 percent of all
          ICANN budget, therefore reluctance to raise additional amounts.
          Furtheremore, the outstanding part of this ICANN budget comes from
          outside of the US. To the two important aspects already mentioned
          -- accountability and autonomy, I would like to add the
          legitimacy.
             + http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00523.html
               workplan and budget
             + http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00524.html
               legitymacy

      11. Paul Kane

          The geographical diversity is an important issue. Why not consider
          a call for tender.

      12. Kathryn Kleiman

          The budget is reasonnable, and some money could be saved if
          technical work passed to ICANN. In trading associations you do not
          charge for the policy establishement. For NCDNH even the
          teleconferences have a cost.

          Erica Roberts

          I sympathise, but I do not know how much we need to operate
          effectively. How does implementation give the value for the pack?
          How do we raise the money? Within Registrars constituency, there
          is a possibility we may balance various constituency groups. We
          need an effective organization, with responsability, there are a
          lot of things we did not budget for and there are various
          requirements.

      13. Roger Cochetti

          I propose the motion that for the year 2000 we adopt a budget for
          the DNSO of $US 95500, with the spending broken down according to
          the categories in Ken Stubbs proposal. This motion is only to
          approve a spending amount and has nothing in and of itself to do
          with either how the funds will be collected to how they are
          administered

      14. Masanobu Katoh

          Subject to the further consideration of the income.

      15. Roger Cochetti

          In deference to Katoh-san's concerns, I am willing to accept a
          friendly amendment that says: If we find that it is impossible to
          raise $US 95500, then we will have to revisit the budget. Does it
          respect Katoh's request ?

      16. Ken Stubbs

          If we cannot raise that money, it is a clear signal to
          constituencies to operate effectively.

      17. Michael Schneider

          I disagree, it is a bad signal. We agree on budget, unless we
          solve the question how to generate the revenue. We unconditionnaly
          agree on budget and postpone untill we find how to raise money.

      18. Ken Stubbs

          We have obligation of expenditures.

      19. Michael Schneider

          If we agree on budget, we create the liability, and if we do not
          manage to have Constituencies agreed to pay for it ? We need solid
          basis.

      20. Roger Cochetti

          My motion is: "The NC hereby endorse for the year 2000 the
          expenditure of $US 95500 with the expenses as broken down in the
          proposal as by Ken.", see
          http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00509.htm

      21. Caroline Chicoine

          Second.

      22. Philip Sheppard

          Point of order. Do we accept to be connected to particular
          conditions, like California, or do we indicate only the upper
          limit and the methodology.

      23. Louis Touton

          Roger's motion does not endorse any geographical implementation,
          but only the total amount. The freedom and flexibility are left to
          the NC on how to implement it.

      24. Caroline Chicoine

          Second this version.

      25. Masanobu Katoh

          I request to have written in the minutes my concern about raising
          money.

      26. Ken Stubbs calls for vote

          The motion passes with 14 yes, 3 abstentions (YJP voting for 3
          members of the NCDNH) and 1 absent (Dennis Jennings).

      27. The small commitee will be set up from to study the implementation
          of the approved budget ($US 95500).

      28. Roger Cochetti

          We have conditions of time. I propose we proceed step by step to
          immediate allocate responsabilities to the Constituencies, to
          encourage Constituencies to come up with the method of paiement,
          to get the invoices out.

      29. Philip Sheppard

          I have to leave, I voulounteer to the implementation commiteee. I
          will be back from Istanbul in 5 days.

      30. Caroline Chicoine

          Is the GA the burden on the Constituencies only ?

      31. Roger Cochetti

          Having adopted the budget, we recognize responsability to each
          Constituency. We allocate liability to each Constituency. We also
          sollicit volounteer donations and contributions from other
          interested in DNSO matters.

      32. Caroline Chicoine

          With the vote we just done, I am concerned about the $US 5000 fees
          for 1999. How much was raised ? The IPC gave $US 5000, but is very
          reluctant to pay until others pay. How should the total amount be
          distributed ?

      33. Louis Touton

          $US 15000 has been collected.

      34. Roger Cochetti

          We request ICANN to publish information on who has paid.

      35. Ken Stubbs

          How should we deal with some strong reluctants to pay ? Some do
          not have much ressources and wish to participate.

      36. Erica Roberts

          NCDNH Constituency is not fortunate. We could reduce their
          participation to $US 10000, and spread out the remider accross
          others.

      37. Roger Cochetti

          We do not want to encorage the irresponsability, but I want to
          show some reduction.

      38. Tony Harris

          I wish that we do not make special exceptions.

      39. Ken Stubbs

          The financial difficulties comes always with the NCDNH. If we cant
          find out way to deal with that, the wrong message si sent out.

      40. Roger Cochetti

          I propose the motion:
             * Recognising that the NC adopted the year 2000 expense budget
               of $US 95500, we hereby allocate equally among the seven
               Constituencies the full $95,500 with all Constituencies to be
               invoiced immediately
             * we take note and recognize the concerns that have been
               expressed that not all Consittuencies have an equal ability
               to pay and that there may be extenuating circumstances for
               some Constituencies and therefor we strongly encourage
               Constituencies to be cooperative and creative among and
               within themselves in developing means to make the necessary
               payments
             * in order to foster this creativity and cooperation within and
               between Constituencies in raising the funds needed to meet
               their obligations to the DNSO, we ask the Chair of the NC to
               set up a commitee
             * we ask the staff to notify the GA of the DNSO and other
               interested parties that we have approved a budget and that we
               encourage the volountary donations to help defray the
               operating expenses of the DNSO

      41. Caroline Chicoine

          Do we have a procedure for enforcing the budget ?

      42. Roger Cochetti

          The item 2 is moral lecture to Constituencies that we should look
          at creative way, and not releve anybody from legal obligations.
          There is an obligation to Constituencies to work with each other.

      43. Tony Harris

          Do we propose any staggering in paying founds ?

      44. Roger Cochetti

          The collection of money is details to be sorted out with Louis
          Touton.

      45. Louis Touton

          Lets divide the total amount equally among the seven
          constituencies, so each would have to contribute US$ 13,643. Each
          constituency will be contacted by the ICANN staff to arrange the
          details of the payment (if they prefer to be invoiced as the whole
          group or as a collection).

      46. Roger Cochetti

          We ask the ICANN staff to advise the NC immediately about received
          paiements. We have also to talk what to do in case of default in
          paiement.

      47. Youn Jung Park

          The NCDNH cannot protect its rights with such expenses.

      48. Ken Stubbs

          You reach out organizations willing to have their voice heard and
          point them out the benefits of being involved, and to join your
          constituency.

      49. Ken Stubbs calls for vote

          The second motion passes with 14 yes, 3 abstentions (YJP voting
          for 3 members of the NC DNH) and 1 absent (Dennis Jennings).

  C. any other relevent items you all can think of

     The deadline for the NC recommendation on the WG-C and WG-B is no
     latter than April 20th.

     The next NC teleconference will be held on Friday April 18th. The time
     will be in favour of Parific Rim.

     The issue of Independent Review Nominating Committee is postponed to
     the April 18th
        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: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 17:28:06 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Sw Gov Interference revisited

You might be interested in the development of administration of the
Swedish national top level domain (ccTLD) .se.

Today (2000-04-03) the Swedish government special investigator Jorgen
Holgersson released his report on the administration of .se.

First some basic facts on the current system as such:

The hodler of the ccTLD is IIS. IIS is a foundation, founded by the
Swedish chapter of ISOC. IIS owns a company called NIC-SE AB. NIC-SE is a
registrar similiar to Network Solutions. NIC-SE is the holder of the
registry of .se. All applicants must contact a local registrar, free from
NIC-SE. The local registrar will try the domain name on formal grounds: is
the domain name valid, is it free to use (unregistered) and is the
applicant the right propretior (this is tried against a document issued to
all trademark holders, corporations, organizations and foundations with
residence in Sweden). If local registrar finds the applicants domain name
okay on formal grounds, it will request registration from NIC-SE. NIC-SE
might deny registration on the same formal grounds as mentioned above. If
the applicant is denied its domain name it may appeal twice - once to a
NIC-SE body and once to NOD which is - so to speak - the supreme court of
Swedish domain names (but not a real court, more an arbitration court).
NOD might grant an application even though NIC-SE wants to refuse it. The
regulations of .se is made by NDR (disclaimer: I'm on the board of NDR).
NDR creates new regulations by interaction and discussion with the market
in a broad sense (i e users, registrars, authorities, corporations and so
on). When NDR has decided on new regulations, it proposes these
regulations to IIS. IIS has a veto on whether the regulations should be
adopted or not.

The system has been critized for not beeing open enough. Therefore, IIS
has decided to apprehend and follow the Swedish principle of openness
(offentlighetsprincipen), whereas all documents of IIS is publicly
available to everyone interested and a total transparancy is the goal.
The subsidiary NIC-SE, however, does not follow this principle. Hence,
only what NIC-SE wants to be out in the open is.

When you know about the current system, it might be interesting to hear
about the changes the Swedish government is about to make.

The main issues in the report are:

1. The .se should be opened to free registration. Today the registrations
are regulated in a way that makes it impossible to register an entity that
has no name protection under Swedish law. That is, any corporation,
trademark or organization can register a name similar to its own name
today, but in the governmental reportn o such considerations will be made.
I could for example register richardsexton.se, estherdyson.se or
cocacola.se. The only way I could do such a thing in the current system is
by first getting the name fromthe Swedish Patent Office (PRV) and they
would never grant me the cocacola name.

2. The PTS, a Swedish authority for numbers and access in
telecommunications (similar to the FCC) will assign two members to the
board of the IIS. IIS is the current holder of the .se ccTLD. IIS is a
foundation, founded by the Swedish chapter of ISOC. IIS is i part the
regulatory body of .se. PTS will also be the controlling authority of IIS.
Exactly what this means in practice is still subject to discussion.

3. A contract will be made whereas IIS and the Swedish government are the
signing parties. The contract will in detail regulate the actions of IIS.

4. A legislative process will take place and the formal transaction of
power will be final in the end of this year.

5. The regulatory functions of the current self-regulatory bodies will
cease to exist. All actions will be court action under Swedish law in
Swedish courts. There will be no investigation of applied domain names,
everything will be granted upon request and a suffering party will have to
bring a cybersquatter to court.

I'm jetlagged like never before (I arrived in Stockholm from New York this
morning), but I hope the above makes sense when it comes to the facts as
such. If not, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Best regards,

Mikael Pawlo

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
                                              http://www.pawlo.com/

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

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

Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:20:15 +0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 03:32 AM 4/2/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>When I first joined this process, I have been told (and I somewhat
>believed) that IANA had the authority to make changes to the A-root.

Roberto,

Indeed, we all did.  That is because:

1.  IANA had been directing the content of the A-root since the inception 
of the DNS, 10 years earlier,

2.  IANA had been responsible for adoption of the original gTLDs, and that 
included a community review process, as it was doing this time, albeit more 
formally this time,

3.  The US government had not previously asserted its coercive powers in 
this realm,

4.  The DNS is a global resource and was not treated as the 'property' of a 
single nation,

5.  All of the bodies that had historical involvement in matters of 
Internet 'governance' -- namely NSF/FNC, IANA and ISOC/IETF -- joined to 
create the group and participate in it,

6.  The most significant corporate constituency with concerns -- namely the 
trademark community -- were well represented, and

7.  Constant discussions were held with the US Government folks tasked to 
attend to this topic.

It simply did not seem possible that the US White House would choose to 
destabilize a process that had been running well for 10 years.  However, 
that is what happened.

>My "technical" half failed to understand why if IANA had the power, the
>A-root was hosted somewhere else, but my "political" half suggested not

Remote hosting is not an indication of non-authority.  Indeed, most 
Internet services that require good connectivity and 7x24 operation are 
typically (co-)located at a remote facility.  IANA is not an operations 
facility.

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: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 08:46:08 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Older Registrations

Dave, you're very good at turning words around, but now that
a link has been provided, it's your turn to back up your
claim. You intimated that Strawn's participation on the IAHC
indicated NSF support.

Please document 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: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 09:14:17 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 08:46:08AM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> Dave, you're very good at turning words around, but now that
> a link has been provided, it's your turn to back up your
> claim. You intimated that Strawn's participation on the IAHC
> indicated NSF support.

That's not accurate.  The claim on Dave's part is that 1) Strawn
participated in the IAHC, and 2) the IAHC had, partly because of
Strawn's participation, but for other reasons as well, good reason to
believe that the USG was at least partially supportive of their efforts.  

You (and others) claimed that "NSF specifically disclaimed Strawns
*participation* in the IAHC".  This claim is not supported by the facts
presented.  1) The FNC is not the NSF; 2) The FNC site mentions several
times the involvement of Strawn in positive terms. 

- -- 
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, 3 Apr 2000 10:23:51 -0700
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

You know, Kent (and Dave), I guess the arguing doesn't matter
much, then.

I suppose the important part is that the IAHC doesn't exist
anymore, its plan was never put into place, and its sole
legacy is floundering.

I remember something my brother told me after being
released from the hospital for x-rays when members of
the opposing football team had flattened him quite
severely. I asked him, "hey, are you planning to get back
at them?" He said, "No, they lost the game."

- --
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: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:12:41 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] About GA membership again......

On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 02:17:25PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 18:09 31/03/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >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.
> >
> 
> No *other* petition for IDNO representation has been made to ICANN. 

Mere presentation of a petition means nothing, of course.  My dog could
present a petition -- that's the nature of the internet.

> The ICANN Board could have conceded in principle that Individual DN owners
> should be given a representative voice on the Names Council.
> It could have said that our organization was not credible and why it
> thought it was not and what should be done about it.
> 
> Instead it chose to ignore the petition altogether.

There are lots of open questions about this issue...the GA, the At-Large
membership of ICANN, the proposal for an "at-large" constituency, etc.  

- -- 
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, 03 Apr 2000 11:04:29 -0700
From: Simon Higgs <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Older Registrations

At 11:20 PM 4/3/00 +0800, you wrote:
>At 03:32 AM 4/2/00 +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>When I first joined this process, I have been told (and I somewhat
>>believed) that IANA had the authority to make changes to the A-root.
>
>2.  IANA had been responsible for adoption of the original gTLDs, and that 
>included a community review process, as it was doing this time, albeit 
>more formally this time,

I didn't know there were two sets of rules. One for those who followed the 
RFC's under IANA's guidance, and another for the Blue Ribbon folk under the 
IAHC who didn't. Of course, if you can document the applications to IANA, 
per RFC1591, for the 7 IAHC/CORE TLDs I'll cut you some slack, but, as many 
folks are already aware, they don't exist.

>7.  Constant discussions were held with the US Government folks tasked to 
>attend to this topic.
>
>It simply did not seem possible that the US White House would choose to 
>destabilize a process that had been running well for 10 years.  However, 
>that is what happened.

Not true. The USG did not destabilize the process. Per NSF requirements 
(previously documented), there is zero validity in the IAHC's gTLD-MoU 
process. USG realized what was happening was wrong, and stopped it. Simple. 
They then created ICANN to continue the process as successor to IANA.

>>My "technical" half failed to understand why if IANA had the power, the
>>A-root was hosted somewhere else, but my "political" half suggested not
>
>Remote hosting is not an indication of non-authority.  Indeed, most 
>Internet services that require good connectivity and 7x24 operation are 
>typically (co-)located at a remote facility.  IANA is not an operations 
>facility.

Los Nettos is the Marina Del Ray operations facility for MAE-LA. I think 
you'll find the same USC/ISI staff overlapping in their duties to oversee 
IANA, Los Nettos, and b.root-servers.net. Ask Bill. ;-)

Best Regards,

Simon

- --
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds 
discuss people, and Fools argue.

- --
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, 3 Apr 2000 12:18:31 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 06:55:01PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> On 03-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 04:40:49PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >> 
> > [...]
> >> 
> >> That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive edict, without
> >> force
> >> of law.
> > 
> > How do you know that an executive edict doesn't have the force of law in
> > Sweden? They do in the US.  In fact, could you explain the relevance of
> 
> No, they don't.  Only after legislation creating a structure of authority is
> passed.  

Sure.  How do you know 1) that such enabling legislation is required in 
Sweden; and 2) that it doesn't exist if it is required?

- -- 
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, 03 Apr 2000 13:23:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

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

On 03-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 06:55:01PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> 
>> On 03-Apr-2000 Kent Crispin wrote:
>> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 04:40:49PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> >> 
>> > [...]
>> >> 
>> >> That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive edict, without
>> >> force
>> >> of law.
>> > 
>> > How do you know that an executive edict doesn't have the force of law in
>> > Sweden? They do in the US.  In fact, could you explain the relevance of
>> 
>> No, they don't.  Only after legislation creating a structure of authority is
>> passed.  
> 
> Sure.  How do you know 1) that such enabling legislation is required in 
> Sweden; and 2) that it doesn't exist if it is required?

How do you know that it does?

The comments are valid anyway, Kent.

- - --
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/

iD8DBQE46P2/8zLmV94Pz+IRAnRNAJ9NxrtLmnCbPkWY76dJZMH3egv0RACgvWmu
Dvq4t4yzTzEDef2KdXDJnxw=
=v8Xa
- -----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: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 16:44:20 -0400 (CST)
From: [email-masked] (Patricio Poblete)
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

[">" = Kent Crispin]
> 
> Sure.  How do you know 1) that such enabling legislation is required in 
> Sweden; and 2) that it doesn't exist if it is required?

Eva Frölich, from NIC-SE, wrote a couple of days ago:

  Of course the government can´t change anything momentarily with this study, 
  but it can be used as the tool to put in place formal legislation.

From this I assume that formal legislation would be needed.

Patricio Poblete
NIC Chile
- --
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, 03 Apr 2000 22:57:01 +0200
From: Eva Frölich <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

To avoid any further speculations about the undertaken study by the swedish 
government - here is the pointer to the summary in english. The study was 
made publicly available during this afternoon.

http://www.naring.regeringen.se/propositioner_mm/sou/pdf/sou2000_30.pdf

/ Eva

_______________________________________________________________________
Eva Frölich
e-mail:	[email-masked]
NIC-SE, Box 5774, 114 87 Stockholm

http://www.nic-se.se

- --
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, 03 Apr 2000 17:21:08 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Swedish gov interferes

Kent and all assembly members,

  Often we have seen WXW make legal comments in which we know
he is not qualified to make, nor has even a good layman's knowledge
of specifically.  This is not been compounded significantly when
applying
Swedish law in this instance.  I, as you Kent find this rather
astounding
and somewhat laughable at the same time.  As a result, I usually ignore
comments of a legal nature from WXW, or anyone that I am sure does
not have the necessary legal knowledge basis to be making.

  In this instance though, I will say that I believe WXW is correct is
suggesting that such decisions should be made by a legislative body
instead of a executive order of sorts.

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 04:40:49PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > That is not what has happened here.  This is an executive edict, without force
> > of law.
>
> How do you know that an executive edict doesn't have the force of law in
> Sweden? They do in the US.  In fact, could you explain the relevance of
> "the force of law" to this discussion? The rfcs don't say anything about
> the "force of law" -- they just require that the responsible party for
> the domain be in the territory in question.  The rfcs make no judgment
> as to what is "legitimate" force.
>
> >
> > > From RFC-1591 we have:
> >
> > The problem with your quotes from RFC1591 is that they are not binding on the
> > delegation of the .SE top level domain.  RFC1591 is the "contract" between IANA
> > and most ccTLDs and the means of delegation.   The contract is the text of
> > RFC1591 at the time of delegation.   Later changes to the RFC1591 cannot be
> > binding on the ccTLD unless they further agree to these changes.
> >
> > Furthermore, ccTLDs such as .SE that were delegated prior to the creation of
> > RFC1591 have no such binding agreement between then and IANA, their delegation
> > authority came without such restrictions.  If ICANN attempts to change that
> > now, without entering into a new contract in advance, they could really face
> > some strong liability.
>
> Your experience as a lawyer is showing.
>
> --
> 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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #48
***********************