Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1009
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, January 20 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1009

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 23:58:08 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Resellers or Individuals --- Which Sandpit to Play In ??

Hi Darryl

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 04:25:49 +1100, Darryl (Dassa) Lynch wrote:

> Jess, please learn to quote correctly, if not possible with your current
> ISP, please change to one that allows such freedom.  How you expect to
> be taken seriously is beyond me when you continuously misquote and don't
> follow common conventions.

You are mistaken saying that Jessica misquoted anybody.  What she did was
simply cut and paste the body of William Walsh's post, in the archives at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00653.html

She properly prefaced this extract with the following introduction:

]  In a message dated 1/18/2002 10:12:00 PM Central Standard Time,
]  [email-masked] writes:

Whilst she did not follow the normal convention, she is not a technical person
and her message is quite clear.  It would be a simple courtesy to explain that
the favoured way to respond to another person's post is to set her email
client to add a ">" in any reply.

Then hit the "reply" key and edit the message.

Even I can't see how quoting correctly has relevance to her "current ISP".

> While you are at it, you might like to suggest some positive changes
> instead of asking others to not contribute.

Et tu Brute !!!

> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 21 Jan 2002 00:05:42 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Any Preference for GA or NC Workgroups ?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:46:59 +1300, David Farrar wrote:

> No but in terms of what influence they will have it is a factor.  If
> the NC agrees to a WG then the consensus opinion of that WG will have
> a certain amount of sway with the NC.

Agreed.  But will they?

Only if there is some consensus on the GA list first.  That is what we were
trying to achieve with our straw poll.

However, there is not a lot of difference in legitimacy between a working
group set up by the GA itself and one set up by the NC on behalf of the GA
membership.

Especially since the NC set up the sublists in the first place !!

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 21 Jan 2002 00:37:18 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

Hi David

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 11:50:39 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00665.html

> Noise is stuff which is off topic.  The GA list is designed exactly
> for discussing proposals such as WLS.

Very often, on this list, there is diversionary debate, such as this
procedural stuff, which does not advance the discussion on topics such as the
WLS proposal.

In fact, I already proposed that procedural stuff be debated elsewhere.  This
was well supported by the GA membership but ignored by the former Chair.

[ . . . ]
> I do support asking the NC to set up a WG on this issue.  If the NC
> agrees then it will be a worthwhile exercise as it will be official.

So we have yet another procedural debate.  And, as I remember, you were
opposed to the idea of a straw poll.

Perhaps you could advise how, in the absence of a straw poll, the GA members
can ask our Chair, Thoms Roessler, to set up such a WG ?

> If the NC do not agree then anything the GA sets up is simply a
> dedicated mailing list.

Not at all.  Were the GA to set up a WG by its own mandate, it would be a WG
set up by the GA for the purpose.  We could even elect our own WG Chair !!!

I really don't see the difference except that you are:

(a)    creating an unnecessary obstacle to the GA's own self-determination,
and
(b)    setting a terrible precedent about how things *should* be done.

> We already have seven of these and they have
> all been defunct for three months or more.  If people want to they can
> use one of those but history has shown us most people continue to use
> the main GA list.

I'm trying to think of a better term than FUD to express my view about what
you have just said.  The special purpose mailing lists got off to a great
start with many people subscribed.  I actually provided the numbers some time
ago.

However, one or two people were vehemently opposed to the idea and tried their
very best to sabotage the scheme.  In the end, the much larger group of people
who were prepared to use these lists became disheartened by the "noise".

I also argued that the lists were best suited to properly structured Working
Groups with prescribed Terms of Reference.  This did not happen.  I also
argued that seven lists were too many and that the number should be reduced.

None of that suggests that a single Working Group, with clearly defined scope,
would not succeed in co-ordinating interested persons to produce an effective
outcome.

As would be the case in a WG dedicated towards a review of domain name
registration systems with a clear focus on the problems associated with
transfers, expirations and deletions.

So you agree we should establish such a WG ?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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, 21 Jan 2002 00:46:38 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] How The Worm Turns ?

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:39:10 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> On Sat, January 19, 2002, 1:46:07 PM, Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> > I am sure that a workgroup on delete could do more faster and bettert then
> > the full GA, who also have other post to consider and are limited to 5
posts
> > a day, but it is your opinion we should not have workgroups open or
closed.
>
> I strongly disagree, and the chair has already made his decision on
> this subject anyway.

Is this really the same William X. Walsh who stridently opposed Danny Younger
whenever he made a decision which did not have the consensus of the GA
membership?

How the worm turns !!!

> Time to move on, Abel.

Says who, William?

> His suggestions about coming up with what you
> think the consensus points are is a good one, one you would have to do
> on a workgroup anyway, and no, it is not only the job of the chair to
> do that.

The Chair has been elected to represent the views of the GA membership.  His
agenda seems to be to oppose the establishment of a Working Group.

Apart from yourself, I don't see anybody else agreeing with that position.

But can I ask you exactly why you are so opposed to a WG?  Is it that you
realise that you would then not be in a position to prevent any meaningful
work output?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:23:33 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

> No, there is not.  However, the results of any private group will
> suffer a legitimacy gap -- anyone who doesn't like the result will
> simply say "it wasn't part of the standard ICANN process, and
> therefore, I didn't pay any attention to it, and therefore it is
> useless because it doesn't contain my input."  And there is some
> justification in that.

There will always be naysayers, but (and perhaps I'm an optimist or just
plain naive) but it strikes me that the output is really what matters in
cases like this. If the outreach is documented, the participants are
documented and the conclusions are documented etc., (essentially, the
documents are well-formed and consistent with the requisites) then claims
concerning legitimacy, or more specifically, lack thereof, cannot be taken
seriously.

- -rwr

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 06:27:03 -0800
From: "William X Walsh, wxsoft" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: How The Worm Turns ?

Sunday, Sunday, January 20, 2002, 5:46:38 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> But can I ask you exactly why you are so opposed to a WG?  Is it that you
> realise that you would then not be in a position to prevent any meaningful
> work output?

You mean like how you have tried to prevent that meaningful work from
going on here on the main list?

Why do you want to divide and conquer at every turn, Patrick?

Because you realize that you can better manipulate and control things
when you divide things up into small groups?

The fact is that the discussion here was not so unmanageable that it
warranted being segregated off.  And you know it.

End of story, you can stop trying to use this issue to further your
little agenda.

You latch on to every important issue like this, to try and further
your view of how things should be run here in the GA.  You didn't get
away with it while you were alt.chair, you didn't get away with it
after you were removed that position, and you aren't getting away with
it now.

Why do you insist on harping on this and dragging this issue out even
more?

I don't see a lot of support for your view either, except a very
smalll handful, who make up a VERY VERY Small fragment of those who
participated in this discussion.  Once again, with the support of only
a couple people, you try and declare that consensus exists.  It takes
much more than that to get to consensus, Patrick.

Your logic is as twisted and poor as ever.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 06:28:49 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Proposed GA Working Group on Domain Name Registration Systems

Sunday, Sunday, January 20, 2002, 5:37:18 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> In fact, I already proposed that procedural stuff be debated elsewhere.  This
> was well supported by the GA membership but ignored by the former Chair.

I love how you turn a few people who supported your view, in an
illegitimate vote anyway, into "well supported by the GA Membership."

Your story telling style of history is rather amusing, Patrick.  Good
for a laugh, but not to be taken seriously.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 06:30:17 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Resellers or Individuals --- Which Sandpit to Play In ??

Sunday, Sunday, January 20, 2002, 4:58:08 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>> While you are at it, you might like to suggest some positive changes
>> instead of asking others to not contribute.

> Et tu Brute !!!

Darryl has done far more postive contributions to this and other
forums than you and Jessica combined.

I suggest might want to consider better your choice of tactics on this
list.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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, 21 Jan 2002 02:44:56 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

All

So far, it looks as if almost everyone is opposed to VeriSign's WLS proposal
except the staff of VeriSign and SnapNames themselves.

There also seems to be reasonable support for the idea of setting up a WG on
domain name registration systems.  However, some seemed to prefer that this be
done by the NC rather than the GA itself.  I think this is creating an
unnecessary obstacle to our self-determination.

I haver extracted most of the relevant comments below.  Unfortunately, I could
not interpret the views of some people (such as Kent Crispin) who chose not to
respond to the straw poll.

As a few people have expressed strong views, I'd say we need further
clarification.  It does look as if consensus is that any working group should
be open to all comers.

I therefore propose we amend the poll as follows:

In relation to setting up a Open Working Group on domain name registration
systems to address the problems associated with transfers, expirations and
deletions.

In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf   [X]
In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request
 ]
Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

I understand that some are opposed to the whole idea of having a straw poll
but there is no other way for the Chair to determine the wishes of the GA
membership.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 11:07:02 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 17:41:21 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> Likewise wrt setting up a WG.  The GA Chair should be able to read the
> mood of the GA and either set up a GA Working Group or preferably ask
> the NC to set up a DNSO Working Group on the issue.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:07:31 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> Very well articulated, and I support this point 110%.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 20:23:51 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote:
> In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:58:01 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:
> In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]
> Not in favor of WLS proposal [X]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 18:55:52 -0600, Don Brown wrote:
> In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 22:38:20 -0600, Hugh Blair wrote:
> In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 00:16:06 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:
>  In favor of setting up a GA working group  [x]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 13:42:32 +0000, Matthew Pemble wrote:
> Perhaps, once announced, the newly elected Chair could organise a formal
> poll on formation of a working party and which members of the GA would
> be willing to participate?

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:19:35 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> don't ask,  just  do...

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 16:24:20 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> Of course, the NC should be doing this for any important question on which
> there is no obvious consensus, and should entirely scrap its farcical Task
> Forces in favour of open-to-anyone Working Groups as used by IETF.
>
> So let's push for that, but in the meanwhile let's not delude ourselves
> that the GA can create meaningful Working Groups.

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:12:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf   [X]
In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request [ ]
Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:26:54 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

I agree wholeheartedly and like to point out further that in my original
proposal i made it very clear (i think) that the result of this WG would be a
draft that would be presented to the GA, redrawn and brought up for a vote in
the GA, which seems to rule out anybodies opinion being omitted.

abel

On Sunday 20 January 2002 2:23 pm, you wrote:
> There will always be naysayers, but (and perhaps I'm an optimist or just
> plain naive) but it strikes me that the output is really what matters in
> cases like this. If the outreach is documented, the participants are
> documented and the conclusions are documented etc., (essentially, the
> documents are well-formed and consistent with the requisites) then claims
> concerning legitimacy, or more specifically, lack thereof, cannot be taken
> seriously.
>
> -rwr

- --
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls

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

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 17:40:27 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll on Working Group

Assembly, Patrick, 

On Sunday 20 January 2002 3:44 pm, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> So far, it looks as if almost everyone is opposed to VeriSign's WLS
> proposal except the staff of VeriSign and SnapNames themselves.

I have yet to see objections to my conclusions on points of consensus, I 
suggest if they not arise in a reasonable timeframe, these could be worded in 
an  "official" GA opinion on the WLS proposal.

> There also seems to be reasonable support for the idea of setting up a WG
> on domain name registration systems.  However, some seemed to prefer that
> this be done by the NC rather than the GA itself.  I think this is creating
> an unnecessary obstacle to our self-determination.

It should not have to be an obstacle, but proves to be one, howevre i am sure 
that with one e-mail from the chair on behalf of the GA this could be 
settled, yet would that not give room to a workgroup "outside" the GA, where 
as whta i have in mind is a workgroup from and for the GA, simply drafting 
possibly consensus carrying documents representing the opinion of the GA.
Since the GA decides in debate and vote about accepibility of such (a) 
draft(s) the group would be finely controlled by the GA.

> I haver extracted most of the relevant comments below.  Unfortunately, I
> could not interpret the views of some people (such as Kent Crispin) who
> chose not to respond to the straw poll.
>
> As a few people have expressed strong views, I'd say we need further
> clarification.  It does look as if consensus is that any working group
> should be open to all comers.
>
> I therefore propose we amend the poll as follows:
>
> In relation to setting up a Open Working Group on domain name registration
> systems to address the problems associated with transfers, expirations and
> deletions.
>
In favor of an open working group set up by the GA on its own behalf   [X]
In favor of an open working group set up by the NC at the Chair's request[  ]
Opposed to any sort of working group however constituted  [  ]

Of couse i am in favor, what did you expect :P

> I understand that some are opposed to the whole idea of having a straw poll
> but there is no other way for the Chair to determine the wishes of the GA
> membership.

Well in my opinion there is enough support to start, but i guess that this 
straw poll, (repeated)  is one that can carry some weight in that decision, 
I therefore urge those who are either in favor or opposed to vote and if you 
do so in public, it is very easy to "keep tabs" for everyone.

Might i suggest a plus or minus a few hours timeframe of 24 hours on this 
poll? seeing the "urgency" ?
And for those wondering what the outline (for starters) would be for such a 
workgroup, i again refer to the posting by Ross at :

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00635.html

with regards

abel wisman

- -- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:40:37 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Concerning Workgroups

Sunday, Sunday, January 20, 2002, 9:26:54 AM, Abel Wisman wrote:

> I agree wholeheartedly and like to point out further that in my original
> proposal i made it very clear (i think) that the result of this WG would be a
> draft that would be presented to the GA, redrawn and brought up for a vote in

But thats just it, unless the draft is drawn up with the direct input
of the GA, and completely based on the discussions that have occurred,
and continue to occur, on the GA list, which is the official
manifestation of the DNSO General Assembly under the bylaws, then it
really isn't and couldn't be presented as a consensus document of the
GA.

I understand that everyone thinks there are better ways to do things,
but the fact is that we have a framework we have to working within,
and if we do it outside that framework, we are inviting rejection.

Now, I know you are not in this group, Abel, because I know you from
other lists, and I know pretty much where you stand and where we agree
and disagree, but there are others on this list who would
intentionally try and push things outside the framework, knowing full
well that by doing so they are giving the Names Council and the board
all the reason in the world to ignore it.  They then would use that
failure to further their cases against ICANN and the way ICANN is
setup.

The thing is, the issues themselves are not that important to those
people, and this is an issue that IS important.  We need to not play
into those people's hands, and we need to develop whatever we develop
right here, inside the framework given to us under the charter of the
DNSO and by ICANN's bylaws.

Anything else, and we are setting ourselves up for failure, something
I know you do not want to see happen.  I know you have the best
intentions, Abel, but now is not the time to force a change in the
framework, not when the issue itself is as important and with such a
wide impact as this one.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
- --

"There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of
the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer
interprets the truth."
- -- Jean Giradoux

- --
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, 21 Jan 2002 04:52:25 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] A Story Telling Style of History ??

On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 06:28:49 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> On Sun, January 20, 2002, 5:37:18 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > In fact, I already proposed that procedural stuff be debated elsewhere.
> > This was well supported by the GA membership but ignored by the
> > former Chair.
>
> I love how you turn a few people who supported your view, in an
> illegitimate vote anyway, into "well supported by the GA Membership."
>
> Your story telling style of history is rather amusing, Patrick.  Good
> for a laugh, but not to be taken seriously.

Hi William

The evidence that I am being truthful in what I say is below.
18 declared supporters and purportedly accepted by Danny.

Let's see you get 18 supporters for "no working groups" !!

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

PS Not yet 5:00 am and my last post already for today :-)

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 14:25:19 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:33:50 EDT, Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > I have no objection to accepting the motion that you have proposed.
> > At some point our Secretariat will advise when it is ready to once more
> > support the activities of the General Assembly.  Perhaps we might be
> > able to conclude a vote on this motion by early October (according to
> > the most recent timetable put forth).  In the meantime, you may wish to
> > get a "sense of the GA" on this topic through a poll.
>
> Thank you for your support and your comments.  By my count, there are
> 18 declared supporters for the present proposal:
>
> *    Peter de Blanc
> *    Roeland Meyer
> *    Leah Gallegos
> *    Jefsey Morfin
> *    Ken Stubbs
> *    William S. Lovell
> *    Marilyn Cade
> *    Ross Wm. Rader (for Tucows)
> *    Bradley Thornton
> *    Alexander Svensson
> *    Michael McNulty
> *    Joop Teernstra
> *    Erica Roberts
> *    Marc Schneiders
> *    Vany Martinez
> *    John C. Lewis
> *    Derek Conant (with reservations)
> *    Patrick Corliss (myself)
>
> I believe that we have sufficient mandate to request members to use the
> [ga-rules] mailing list to debate procedural or other administrative issues
> like websites, mailing lists, etc.
>
> > To facilitate that effort, and in response to the recommendation put forth
> > by Bill Lovell to create our own website, I have begun building such a
> > site (with an area devoted to current motions).  You may visit
> > http://www.icannworld.org to see the results of my efforts over the
> > course of this weekend.
>
> I would, of course, thank both Bill Lovell and yourself, as well as Joanna
> Lane, for your kind efforts.
>
> One wonders why we cannot incorporate these initiatives into the current
> DNSO website.  I see this as an issue that needs to be discussed on the
> [ga-rules] mailing list.
>
> > Clicking on the General Assembly Link will take you to the page that
> > leads you to the Straw Poll.
>
> Thank you.  At least we start with the 18 names above (19 if we include
> yourself) in favour of discussing non-substantive issues on the [ga-rules]
> mailing list.
>
> I see that as sufficient mandate to encourage compliance with this motion.
>
> > Best regards,
> > Danny
>
> Best wishes
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 18:52:42 +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Danny
>
>  Perhaps I should have read your wishy washy, doublespeak wording more
>  carefully.  You wrote:
>
> > > At some point our Secretariat will advise when it is ready to once more
> > > support the activities of the General Assembly.  Perhaps we might be
> > > able to conclude a vote on this motion by early October (according to
> > > the most recent timetable put forth).  In the meantime, you may wish to
> > > get a "sense of the GA" on this topic through a poll.
>
>  The fact is that the DNSO Secretariat never had any intention of putting my
>  motion to a vote.  I doubt if you did either despite your misleading
heading
>  "Motion Accepted".
>
>  If we can't even get an internal motion to a vote of the GA, what chance do
>  we have with something that has external implicatations.
>
>  So can we cut the crap and just write off the GA as a farce?
>
>  Best regards
>  Patrick
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [ga] <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 3:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion Accepted
>
>
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:33:50 EDT, Danny Younger wrote:
> >
> > > I have no objection to accepting the motion that you have proposed.
> > > At some point our Secretariat will advise when it is ready to once more
> > > support the activities of the General Assembly.  Perhaps we might be
> > > able to conclude a vote on this motion by early October (according to
> > > the most recent timetable put forth).  In the meantime, you may wish to
> > > get a "sense of the GA" on this topic through a poll.
> >
> > Thank you for your support and your comments.  By my count, there are
> > 18 declared supporters for the present proposal:
> >
> > *    Peter de Blanc
> > *    Roeland Meyer
> > *    Leah Gallegos
> > *    Jefsey Morfin
> > *    Ken Stubbs
> > *    William S. Lovell
> > *    Marilyn Cade
> > *    Ross Wm. Rader (for Tucows)
> > *    Bradley Thornton
> > *    Alexander Svensson
> > *    Michael McNulty
> > *    Joop Teernstra
> > *    Erica Roberts
> > *    Marc Schneiders
> > *    Vany Martinez
> > *    John C. Lewis
> > *    Derek Conant (with reservations)
> > *    Patrick Corliss (myself)
> >
> > I believe that we have sufficient mandate to request members to use the
> > [ga-rules] mailing list to debate procedural or other administrative
> > issues like websites, mailing lists, etc.
> >
> > > To facilitate that effort, and in response to the recommendation put
> > > forth
> > > by Bill Lovell to create our own website, I have begun building such a
> > > site (with an area devoted to current motions).  You may visit
> > > http://www.icannworld.org to see the results of my efforts over the
> > > course of this weekend.
> >
> > I would, of course, thank both Bill Lovell and yourself, as well as Joanna
> > Lane, for your kind efforts.
> >
> > One wonders why we cannot incorporate these initiatives into the current
> > DNSO website.  I see this as an issue that needs to be discussed on the
> > [ga-rules] mailing list.
> >
> > > Clicking on the General Assembly Link will take you to the page that
> > > leads you to the Straw Poll.
> >
> > Thank you.  At least we start with the 18 names above (19 if we include
> > yourself) in favour of discussing non-substantive issues on the [ga-rules]
> > mailing list.
> >
> > I see that as sufficient mandate to encourage compliance with this motion.
> >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Danny
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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

- --
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, 21 Jan 2002 09:09:37 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Any Preference for GA or NC Workgroups ?

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:05:42 +1100, "Patrick Corliss"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 00:46:59 +1300, David Farrar wrote:
>
>> No but in terms of what influence they will have it is a factor.  If
>> the NC agrees to a WG then the consensus opinion of that WG will have
>> a certain amount of sway with the NC.
>
>Agreed.  But will they?
>
>Only if there is some consensus on the GA list first.  That is what we were
>trying to achieve with our straw poll.

Whether or not there is consensus on the GA list will sadly have
almost no impact on whether an official WG is set up.  

>However, there is not a lot of difference in legitimacy between a working
>group set up by the GA itself and one set up by the NC on behalf of the GA
>membership.

But you exclude the former WGs which were set up on behalf of the DNSO
as a whole - A,B , C and D etc.  They were seen to have much greater
legitimacy.

>Especially since the NC set up the sublists in the first place !!

A sublist is not a WG.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 14:15:56 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] WLS - Better Margins for Registrars

I think this, and other recent posts, stray from the core issue (no
offense intended).

This is not a marketing or a sales issue. So a discussion of business
models (auction, WLS or otherwise) is misplaced.

The rudimentary issue identified, is the need for the development of a
workable procedure for dropping domain names so that: (1) it resolves
the Registry's capacity issue (2) so "everyone" is on a level playing
field; Registrars, Resellers, Speculators, Registrants and all other
interested parties (3) so that it neither stifles competition nor
allows a monopolistic, or other unfair, advantage.

Fulfillment of the foregoing objective allows a free market. That free
market includes various auction models, the variety of models
currently employed by many of the Registrars, as well as the Snap and
the "Snap similar" competitors. Moreover, it allows for innovation and
further competition. IOW, when the core objective is attained, the
free market will take care of itself.

The RAA http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm, in
particular, section 3.7.5, speaks to expired and canceling domain
names. It also speaks about the potential adoption of an ICANN
specification and procedure with respect to expired and/or canceled
domain names, but no such specification and procedure has been
adopted.

The creation of a uniform policy, specification and practice, which is
adopted by ICANN under 3.7.5 of the RAA and a technical solution for
the Registry (many have been suggested but rejected without
explanation) is, IMHO, where we should concentrate our efforts and
debate.

FWIW

Saturday, January 19, 2002, 12:46:01 PM, Eric Schneider <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> > COMPETITION
>> > Just because WLS, if implemented, may stifle other secondary market
>> > models
>> > does not mean in the slightest that WLS stifles competition amongst
>> > registrars.  Currently, secondary market models and proposals other
>>
>> Competition is stifled. All that happens is that existing competitors
>> get the privilege of being resellers of Verisign services, instead of
>> being allowed to innovate as they are now.

ES> One competing proposal is that of an auction model.  Tell me, how will
ES> auctioning be stifled from WLS.  End-users don't have to wait for a domain
ES> name to expire to make a bid.

ES> Competition has emerged by developing solutions in response to an expiration
ES> event.  If a competitor was truly innovative they would've realized that
ES> there would be merit in providing services to consumers at any time without
ES> waiting around for the condition of an expiration event.

ES> It is precisely because competitors are as you say "innovating as they are
ES> now" the reason why they have not seen that there could be other solutions.
ES> You snooze, you lose.  After a company ramps up a new service, they tend to
ES> make innovation less of a priority and possibly fall asleep at the wheel.
ES> Those companies who innovate unconditionally 24/7 are the ones that will
ES> emerge from the herd and lead with new products/services in new markets and
ES> new directions.

ES> New technologies emerge everyday that can shift marketshares in an instance.
ES> That's what business and competition is all about.  I have no pity for a
ES> competitor that could not see the forest from the trees.

>> > Personally, I think that the first-time purchase of a back-order
>> > should be treated as a fixed expense of sorts.  There should be no
>> > price competition between registrars for the initial purchase with
>> > the price set at $100 for anyone, anytime, and anywhere.  By so
>> > doing all constituencies including ICANN, Registry, and Registrar
>> > get paid fairly.
>>
>> You leave out the "registrant". Basically, your pricing scheme is a
>> centrally-planned model, similar to what central-planners did under
>> communism. They'd set a price based on what they thought was "fair",
>> rather than allowing the market to set the price and mechanism through
>> competition. To be blunt, if you want to be a central planner and want
>> a price that is "fair", you should not be in the domain business, which
>> is run on free-market principles. I'll rely on a competitive
>> marketplace to determine prices and valid business models, rather than
>> a single individual (you), monopolist (Verisign), or cartel (all
>> registrars co-ordinating to price-fix).

ES> You are taking this out of context and are commenting on only one component
ES> of the proposed pricing model.  The intention of my initial comments was an
ES> attempt to be more creative of how a service such as a WLS might be priced.
ES> Most subscription pricing models are time based by charging some kind of
ES> periodic rate ($69 per year).  The point is that by proposing a price model
ES> that is EVENT BASED rather than TIME BASED, there would be the advantages of
ES> a FIXED RISK at the time of purchase.

ES> Regards,
ES> Eric Schneider

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

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 #1009
*************************