Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1038
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Thursday, February 14 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1038

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

Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:38:18 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Access lending may violate RAA, says ICANN

The registrar agreements have become a joke as everybody knows ICANN
doesn't enforce it.  I have filed over 50 complaints for registrars
locking domains (mostly VeriSign) and nothing is done.  Why should
anyone expect ICANN to enforce this or any provision of the agreement?

Russ Smith

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Alexander Svensson
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:05 AM
To: DNSO General Assembly
Subject: [ga] FYI: Access lending may violate RAA, says ICANN

	
http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-12feb02.htm

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

Registrar Advisory Concerning Inappropriate Lending of Registry Access

Based on recent communications with registrars, it has become apparent
that
some ICANN-accredited registrars may be inappropriately lending their
access
to registries to third-party proxies. If not appropriately conducted, 
providing
registry access to third parties can violate registrars' agreements with
ICANN
and jeopardize their continued accreditation. While registrars are
permitted to
enter into reseller arrangements with agents that assist them in
providing
service to customers, registrars are not permitted otherwise to lend
access to
their connections directly to entities that are not accredited
registrars.

The purpose of this advisory is to assist registrars in understanding
their
obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) [*] in
matters
relating to lending access to entities that are not accredited
registrars.
Where appropriate, ICANN will exercise its right to audit registrar
records
in order to ensure compliance with the RAA.

Pertinent Provisions of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement

The current version of the RAA is divided into 5 sections: section 1
defines
terms; section 2 describes ICANN's obligations to registrars; section 3
describes registrars' obligations to ICANN; section 4 describes how
ICANN's
consensus process can create new policies that would be binding on
registrars;
and section 5 covers miscellaneous subjects such as termination and 
assignment.

Section 3's "Registrar Obligations" cover topics such as submission of
data to
registries, data retention requirements, public access to Whois data,
accreditation fees, and also various business requirements and
restrictions
binding on registrars. These operational mandates are set forth in
Section 
3.7,
entitled "Business Dealings, Including with Registered Name Holders."
Several
of these provisions are relevant to lending of registrar-registry
access.
These include:

  3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page
and a
  port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to
up-to-date
  (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered
Names
  sponsored by Registrar for each TLD in which it is accredited. ...

  3.4.2 During the Term of this Agreement and for three years
thereafter,
  Registrar (itself or by its agent(s)) shall maintain ... records
relating to
  its dealings with the Registry Operator(s) and Registered Name Holders
... .

  3.7.3 Registrar shall not represent to any actual or potential
Registered 
Name
  Holder that Registrar enjoys access to a registry for which Registrar
is
  Accredited that is superior to that of any other registrar Accredited
for 
that
  registry.

  3.7.4 Registrar shall not activate any Registered Name unless and
until 
it is
  satisfied that it has received a reasonable assurance of payment of
its
  registration fee.

  3.7.7 Registrar shall require all Registered Name Holders to enter
into an
  electronic or paper registration agreement with Registrar ... .

In summary, based on these provisions a registrar:

- - must have a contract with a registrant for every domain name it
registers
   (3.7.7);

- - must not "add" domains into a registry without advance assurance of
payment
   of the registration fee (3.7.4);

- - must not represent that it has superior access to the registry
(3.7.3);

- - must maintain a record of all registration data it submits to the
registry
   (3.4.2); and

- - must provide Whois data, updated at least daily, for every domain it 
sponsors
   in the registry (3.3.1).

Registrar Access-Lending Schemes

At least one registrar access-lending scheme currently in operation
raises
significant issues under these provisions of the RAA. One registrar
recently
reported that it was unaware that it was responsible for hundreds of
domain
registrations that had been added to and then deleted from the registry 
without
the registrar's participation. The registrations had been processed
through a
machine provided by a third party that had been installed on the
registrar's
network. This registrar had agreed to install the third party's machine
in
exchange for monetary compensation paid to the registrar. The third
party was
using the machine's access to the registry to add domain registrations
into 
the
registry on behalf of the third party's customers.

Those customers had not agreed to enter into the registrar's
registration 
agreement
(in violation of RAA section 3.7.7); indeed, it appears the registrar
had no
relationship with the customers involved. The customers had not paid (or

promised
to pay) the registrar prior to the activation of the registrations (in 
violation
of 3.7.4). The registrar apparently did not have any record of the
domains 
that had
been registered (and subsequently deleted) through its systems (in 
violation of
3.4.2). Since the registrar didn't even know it had made some of the 
registrations,
it was not providing updated Whois data for those registrations (in 
violation of
3.3.1).

Overarching these other violations is a breach of section 3.7.3, which 
prohibits
registrars from representing that they have superior registry access. It

appears
that the third party has been claiming it offered the best chance to
acquire
expired names. Registrars allowing, in violation of the above
provisions, a 
third
party to enjoy the registrars' access to the registry are responsible
for the
superior-access claims that third party makes.

Permissible Registrar Wholesale/Reseller Models Distinguished

Many ICANN-accredited registrars operate or participate in
wholesale/reseller
business models that can be readily distinguished from the impermissible
access-lending schemes outlined above. In a standard registrar/reseller
model,
the registrar complies with all of the above provisions of the RAA. The 
registrar
that processes domain registrations through resellers is required to
have a
contract with every registrant, obtain assurance of payment before
activating
registrations, maintain its own records of all registration data, and
provide
public access to updated data for all domains it sponsors.

Conclusion

All ICANN-accredited registrars are strongly encouraged to undertake an 
immediate
review of any access-lending schemes in which they are currently 
participating to
ensure that they are in compliance with all of the provisions of the
Registrar
Accreditation Agreement. Registrars that continue to operate in breach
of 
the RAA
should review section 5.3 of the agreement, which covers termination of
accreditation. ICANN considers registrar compliance with accreditation 
agreements
to be a high priority. ICANN will exercise its right under Section 3.4.3
to 
audit
registrar records as appropriate.

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

[*] http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm

- --
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:23:59 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] conquer and divide

We are currently on target for posting responses as planned on Friday, 15
February.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:41 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'George Kirikos'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] conquer and divide
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> I do not expect answers to the questions yet or even to all 
> of them ever,
> but,
> Did you get them acceptably and are you moving forward to 
> providing the
> responses?
> 
> I think we should keep in mind that this was a very good achievement.
> To have an industry giant reach into the community and obtain 
> such Q & A
> input is a very good step into the right direction.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Eric
> 
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> 
> > George,
> >
> > As long as we get them by midnight tonight (EST), that will be fine.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:47 AM
> > > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Cc: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] conquer and divide
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Abel,
> > >
> > > --- Abel Wisman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > > there are currently 2 questionlists for VGRS circualting,
> > > who for the
> > > > most
> > > > part overlap.
> > >
> > > <skip>
> > >
> > > > perhaps Thomas is willing to get either of this or better yet a
> > > > combination
> > > > of these going as GA majority questions.
> > >
> > > I think it's just a matter of Thomas doing a merge of all 
> submitted
> > > questions. Perhaps Chuck Gomes can let us know what time
> > > today he wants
> > > all questions submitted (maybe by 6 pm Pacific, i.e. 9 pm 
> Eastern?).
> > >
> > > By the way, I tried submitting my questions to the other 
> mailing list
> > > at:
> > >
> > > http://prometheus.able-nl.com/mailman/listinfo/draft-deletes
> > >
> > > however none of my attempts to send messages work (and it 
> shows me as
> > > subscribed, and I've not received anything). I think that 
> mailing list
> > > may be broken, or something.
> > >
> > > Given Thomas' post at:
> > >
> > > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00846.html
> > >
> > > I assume he's been collecting the questions, and will merge all
> > > questions soon.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > George Kirikos
> > > http://www.kirikos.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> > > http://greetings.yahoo.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
> 
- --
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:40:41 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] conquer and divide

Hi Chuck,

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> We are currently on target for posting responses as planned on
> Friday, 15
> February.

That's good to hear. I was wondering if you can elaborate on the
current situation with regards to expired names before Friday. In
particular, you wrote at

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02010.html

that there's been no change in deletes, yet there's a big backlog of
names that have not been deleted by Verisign. Perhaps you're not the
appropriate person to ask, if it's Verisign "registrar" as opposed to
Verisign "registry" at fault, but what's going on? The last drop was in
early January, and it's now almost Valentine's Day. If you're not the
appropriate person, who at Verisign should be asked?

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:29:33 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] conquer and divide

George,

If registrars do not send us deletes, we cannot delete them.  This is true
of all registrars, no exceptions.  We do not have any information about any
registrar's names in this category, not even VeriSign Registrar.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:41 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] conquer and divide
> 
> 
> Hi Chuck,
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > We are currently on target for posting responses as planned on
> > Friday, 15
> > February.
> 
> That's good to hear. I was wondering if you can elaborate on the
> current situation with regards to expired names before Friday. In
> particular, you wrote at
> 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02010.html
> 
> that there's been no change in deletes, yet there's a big backlog of
> names that have not been deleted by Verisign. Perhaps you're not the
> appropriate person to ask, if it's Verisign "registrar" as opposed to
> Verisign "registry" at fault, but what's going on? The last 
> drop was in
> early January, and it's now almost Valentine's Day. If you're not the
> appropriate person, who at Verisign should be asked?
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> http://greetings.yahoo.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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:51:59 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] conquer and divide

Wednesday, Wednesday, February 13, 2002, 10:44:26 AM, Mike Mann /BuyDomains.com wrote:

> Chuck,

> You have been a core component of NSI for ages - you know that deletes are 
> being withheld and why (hoarding/preventing competitors from creating a 
> market, etc). Just because you switched from Registrar to Registry doesnt 
> mean you arent in touch with your friends and bosses across the hall. 
> Playing stupid is unbecoming of you.

Especially since last spring, when Verisign's blackmail and ICANN's
complicity in the new contract changes, effectively tore down the fake
chinese wall between the two divisions.

- -- 
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:06:34 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

Danny and all Assembly members,

[email-masked] wrote:

> In a message posted to the IDNO list David Farrar writes:  "There is no way
> at all any individuals constituency would be able to raise funds to match
> what the business groups pay.

  I can attest that this thought is incorrect.  [INEGroup] has raised
significant funds for it's members.  We are not however a ICANN
Constituency, not given the current atmosphere and flawed structure
are we interested in becoming a ICANN Constituency.  The current
funds available within our organization are fairly significant (Appox
$18.5m presently).

>  If there is ever an individual's constituency
> the DNSO will have to recognise that individuals pay most of their money
> through the registrars, ISPs and registries,

Yes but only if they are an ICANN Constituency member.

>

>

>  This is one reason I think the
> possibility of having the ALSO perform a dual role as an individuals
> constituency within the DNSO has merit.  It will possibly avoid serious
> duplication of expenses."

  Duplication of expenses is a minor issue IMHO.  Rather it is more
important that individual stakeholders regardless of their status have
representation within the DNSO.  Currently with the present structure
of the DNSO, this is not possible nor has it been seriously addressed.
Hence it is obvious that the GA is essential as it is the only place
where individual stakeholders have any voice or vote in the determining
of DNS policy presently.  That proposed ALSO would seek to severely
limit representation to Domain Name Holders only and a limited number of
them as well as Inclusive and Competitive Registries and root structure
Domain Name holders are not considered acceptable under the current
ICANN staff's scheme for the ALSO.  This is unexceptable and
unrepresentative as a result.

> The latest recommendation from the IPC to the NC Structure Task Force Policy
> stipulates that ALSO input to the Board is only to be channeled by way of the
> DNSO (in which the ALM would have a mere three votes in a 24-member council),
> and further, "no policy recommendations would come from the ALSO separately".
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00086.html
>
> This proposition is a blatant attempt to attack the At-Large and should not
> be supported by the GA's representative.

  Agreed.  The ALSO should be a separate organization.

>
>
> --
>

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 16:23:13 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] conquer and divide

William,

Please refer to the following sections of the new registry agreements:

	.com - Section 23 along with Appendices H & I
	.org & .net - Section 3.5 along with Appendices H & I.

I think you will find that what is required under the new agreements and you
refer to as the "chinese wall" is if anything stronger than it was under the
old agreements.  Everything from the original agreements is still in these
plus some added items.

Chuck  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:52 PM
> To: Mike Mann /BuyDomains.com
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'George Kirikos'; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] conquer and divide
> 
> 
> Wednesday, Wednesday, February 13, 2002, 10:44:26 AM, Mike 
> Mann /BuyDomains.com wrote:
> 
> > Chuck,
> 
> > You have been a core component of NSI for ages - you know 
> that deletes are 
> > being withheld and why (hoarding/preventing competitors 
> from creating a 
> > market, etc). Just because you switched from Registrar to 
> Registry doesnt 
> > mean you arent in touch with your friends and bosses across 
> the hall. 
> > Playing stupid is unbecoming of you.
> 
> Especially since last spring, when Verisign's blackmail and ICANN's
> complicity in the new contract changes, effectively tore down the fake
> chinese wall between the two divisions.
> 
> -- 
> 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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:07:50 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] conquer and divide

If VeriSign does not abide by the registrar transfer rules why should
anyone expect them to follow any of the other rules?

Russ Smith

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gomes,
Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 4:23 PM
To: [email-masked]'; Mike Mann /BuyDomains.com
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'George Kirikos'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] conquer and divide

William,

Please refer to the following sections of the new registry agreements:

	.com - Section 23 along with Appendices H & I
	.org & .net - Section 3.5 along with Appendices H & I.

I think you will find that what is required under the new agreements and
you
refer to as the "chinese wall" is if anything stronger than it was under
the
old agreements.  Everything from the original agreements is still in
these
plus some added items.

Chuck  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:52 PM
> To: Mike Mann /BuyDomains.com
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'George Kirikos'; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] conquer and divide
> 
> 
> Wednesday, Wednesday, February 13, 2002, 10:44:26 AM, Mike 
> Mann /BuyDomains.com wrote:
> 
> > Chuck,
> 
> > You have been a core component of NSI for ages - you know 
> that deletes are 
> > being withheld and why (hoarding/preventing competitors 
> from creating a 
> > market, etc). Just because you switched from Registrar to 
> Registry doesnt 
> > mean you arent in touch with your friends and bosses across 
> the hall. 
> > Playing stupid is unbecoming of you.
> 
> Especially since last spring, when Verisign's blackmail and ICANN's
> complicity in the new contract changes, effectively tore down the fake
> chinese wall between the two divisions.
> 
> -- 
> 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

- --
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:14:09 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] conquer and divide

Wednesday, Wednesday, February 13, 2002, 1:23:13 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> William,

> Please refer to the following sections of the new registry agreements:

>         .com - Section 23 along with Appendices H & I
>         .org & .net - Section 3.5 along with Appendices H & I.

> I think you will find that what is required under the new agreements and you
> refer to as the "chinese wall" is if anything stronger than it was under the
> old agreements.

Except the enforcement.  ICANN and Verisign made it damn near impossible for
Verisign to lose its right to manage .com.

- -- 
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:18:02 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list

On 8 January Alexander Svensson reiterated his request to the Council for 
read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list.  Mr. Sheppard advised that 
he has already asked our new technical support at the DNSO secretariat to 
look into the problem and noted that the tech support unit has been asked to 
report back on the options/costs for a solution.

I am not yet aware of such a report from the Secretariat.  Has it been 
released or is it expected to soon be forthcoming?
- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 18:34:15 +0900
From: Adam PEAKE <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

Hello.

The 5000 threshold was the minimum membership required by the board for
the 2000 election.

It can be very difficult to send very small amounts of money. Many
credit cards have minimum transaction amounts, I believe wire transfers
have a minimum. Local aggregation may be a sensible way to go (has its
own difficulties - example, lack of time available to set up structures
capable of handling other people's money?)  I personally don't agree
with the fee model (see the NAIS report), but if that's the way we've to
go, then there are ways it could work in a reasonably equitable manner.

Thanks,

Adam

Adam Peake
GLOCOM  Tokyo  

DPF wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 08:34:39 -0800, Mike Roberts
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >There are tens of millions of Internet users who routinely use credit
> >cards for secure online transactions.  The Board previously indicated
> >that its lower threshold for viability of an At Large organization
> >was 5,000.   $25x5000 = US $125,000, which is at least a start on a
> >self-sustaining organization.  $25x10,000 = $250,000 which sounds
> >more likely to cover the related costs, assuming that all of the
> >leadership continues to be volunteer.
> 
> Hi Mike - can you post a reference to where the Board has indicated
> this lower threshold?  It is of interest to me as the DNSO Structure
> Taskforce has also been debating what the lower threshold should be.
> 
> Can I say at the outset that with only 35,000 people voting last time,
> the chances of getting 5,000 people to initially pay US$25 is near
> zero in my estimation.
> 
> I believe that an initial fee should be no more than US$5, a minimum
> threshold of 1,000 (ten times greater than any constituency) and ICANN
> to provide initial transition funding.  *Maybe* after a year or two
> when there is a working active ALSO could one look at a higher fee or
> a higher threshold but to put them os high at the beginning will doom
> the ALSO before it is born in which case we will have wasted $500,000
> on the ALSC.
> 
> 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
- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 11:05:11 +0100
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list

On 13 Feb, [email-masked] wrote :
> On 8 January Alexander Svensson reiterated his request to the Council for 
> read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list.  Mr. Sheppard advised that 
> he has already asked our new technical support at the DNSO secretariat to 
> look into the problem and noted that the tech support unit has been asked to 
> report back on the options/costs for a solution.
> 
> I am not yet aware of such a report from the Secretariat.  Has it been 
> released or is it expected to soon be forthcoming?
> 

Read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list is already done through
a transparent access to archives.
(sent mail to the list appears on the archives five minutes later).

This access has been eased through a direct access from the homepage called 'mailing list'.

Regards,

DNSO Sec.
 
- --
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, 14 Feb 2002 04:43:39 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list

Secretariat and all assembly members,

DNSO Secretariat wrote:

> On 13 Feb, [email-masked] wrote :
> > On 8 January Alexander Svensson reiterated his request to the Council for
> > read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list.  Mr. Sheppard advised that
> > he has already asked our new technical support at the DNSO secretariat to
> > look into the problem and noted that the tech support unit has been asked to
> > report back on the options/costs for a solution.
> >
> > I am not yet aware of such a report from the Secretariat.  Has it been
> > released or is it expected to soon be forthcoming?
> >
>
> Read-only e-mail access to the Names Council list is already done through
> a transparent access to archives.
> (sent mail to the list appears on the archives five minutes later).

  As has been pointed out on a number of occasions, and most recently
by Joanna Lane, not all sent mail is going the Council Archives, and therefore
is not received.  Hence it would seem that the actual transparency doesn't
exist.  Perhaps that is in part what Danny was getting at in his query.

>
>
> This access has been eased through a direct access from the homepage called 'mailing list'.

  What???  Please elaborate...

>
>
> Regards,
>
> DNSO Sec.
>
> --
> 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 for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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 #1038
*************************