Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1041
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, February 16 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1041

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

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:08:20 -0500
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] VGRS Answers to WLS Questions

>I find this entire document and its lack of
>substance entirely unsatisfactory.

You have just described the entire career of Chuck Gomes.

Russ Smith

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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:44:44 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Friday, February 15, 2002, 3:04:11 AM, Abel Wisman wrote:
>
> > Harold and Assembly,
>
> > Harold, you come close. To many "forget" the thin line that reads:
> > "Registrars would be able to redeem the name in the registry for the
> > original registrant by payment renewal fees, plus a service charge, to
> > the registry operator."
>
> > "plus a service charge" ....
>
William X Walsh wrote
> Good catch, Abel.
>
> This should definitely be removed, or specified to be no more than $1
> for instance if it must be in at all.
>
> I Strongly urge that line be completely removed.
>

Yes, that one line leads me to believe that this might be yet another
attempt by our Verisign Friends to sneak in yet another angle to close in
on expiring domain market.  This time via ICANN.

Verisign even highlights this in their answers to WLS questions document
here:
http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
page 14: Verisign states:
QUOTE
c) If a name is deleted "in error", does it go back to the original
registrant?
o In the original WLS proposal, VGRS recommended that there be a 15-day
Registry Hold period for all deleted name registrations, including those for
which
a WLS subscription existed. During this period, a registrar could reinstate
a
registration if an inadvertent deletion occurred. In the revised WLS
proposal, this
provision was removed because ICANN is going to take the lead in the process
that hopefully will lead to such a procedure, possibly for a period longer
than 15
days. It is possible that the ICANN process and the subsequent
implementation of
an extended Registry Hold period for all deleted registrations will not be
completed before the possible implementation of the WLS. If that happens,
VGRS
would be willing to consider implementing an interim procedure to provide
for
this need (see the answer to question A.3). Comments in this regard would be
appreciated.
UNQUOTE
I find it interesting that Verisign quotes ICANN process taking place as
though
Verisign has inside scoop on the whole thing.

As I see it, WLS would place Verisign Registry on top of monopoly charging
$35 per year
on 1,000,000 plus subscriptions

PLUS

Verisign Registry would collect thus far undisclosed amount for 'service
charge'
to return the domain to the Registrar.  Unless the 'service charge'
is reasonable $1.00 or $2.00 I see this "Grace Period Proposal" as
unacceptable.

I urge everyone to use the feedback email listed on the bottom of the
document
to express your position on this issue.

cheers
Genie Livingstone

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:19:13 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Hello Marc,

At 15.02.2002 21:58, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>Those registrars that I have checked (in alphabetical order: Dotster,
>Enom, OpenSRS, Register.com) have an Auto Renew option. This fully takes
>care of the problem discussed in this ICANN document. There is no need for
>anything else. Registrars can profile themselves by offering the auto
>renew service, or even other services that avoid losing a domain (e.g.
>snail mail or telephone notification).

I'm not so sure. E.g. Register.com's service called
SafeRenew is simply an attempt to charge the credit card
the renewal fee. Not everyone pays or even wants to
pay the domain fees by credit card, and even for those
who do, credit card information is also subject to change.

>The ICANN document states:
>
>"Indeed, anecdotal evidence indicates that a significant portion of the
>demand for registration of deleted domains involves domains that the
>former registrant did not intend to have deleted. If the only names
>that became available to the market for re-registering expired names
>were ones that were truly no longer wanted by the original
>registrants, the demand for expired names would be less intense, and
>perhaps significantly so."
>
>This is too easy. Facts and figures are needed. Why change things, and
>give VeriSign a new profitable monopoly, if all we have is "anecdotal
>evidence" and speculation based upon that? Come on.

First of all, I don't think that a new profitable 
monopoly has to be created to implement this. If anything,
registry and registrar may be allowed to charge a very 
small fee for handling the late renewal. If
0.50-2.00 US$ are an educated guess for the core costs 
of a domain name at the registry level, 
(http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-February/001437.html)
the late renewal fee should definitely be less.
If -- as you seem to imply -- there was no 
big problem (i.e. if all expired domains are due to 
lack of interest of their current holders), the fee 
would simply never be charged.

I agree that we need more information from ICANN about 
the complaints. But even if only a small portion of
domains up for deletion are domains which their owners
really want to keep, such a grace period is a good
thing. It might be even better (see fnord's article
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=548&mode=thread&order=0)
to have the web site resolve to a notice "Attention, 
this domain name is about to be deleted due to 
non-payment of renewal fees."

It seems to me that the only ones negatively affected
are companies and individuals trying to make a business
out of the current situation where at least /some/
domains are deleted without the owner realizing it.
This may not apply to those users who use some kind of
Auto Renew and who keep their contact data current
and accurate. But then again, to err is human --
which is why I appreciate adding a bit of forgiveness 
to the domain deletion process! :)

Best regards,
/// Alexander

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 02:22:53 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

Philip Sheppard has published his latest version of the Structure TF report 
(v6) at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00013.doc

It's still a piece of garbage, and it does no more than incorporate the IPC's 
comment that no policy recommendations should come from the ALSO separately.

It's time for our GA rep to react to this travesty.  

The ICANN Board requested comments on the ALSC Final report from the NC 
within 45 days of their November 15 announcement:  "Further resolved [01.126] 
that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final Report from the Internet 
community as a whole, including the DNSO Names Council, the ASO Address 
Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests that any such comments be 
submitted within 45 days from the date of this Resolution;"

Why are we participating in a bogus analysis of the ALM which is well past 
the deadline for comments, instead of looking at the restructuring proposals 
for the DNSO which have been put on the table?  Why aren't we also looking at 
the restructuring of ICANN in light of the movement toward a ccSO?  Why is 
the TF avoiding these other issues and only acting to attack the ALM?  

Does our GA rep support the position taken in the document that "There will 
be one additional at-large member than the status quo of five."?!! 

This is a call to arms.  Either you start fighting back for the future of the 
At-Large or you put on your kneepads and grovel before the BC and IPC.  The 
choice is yours.  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:10:49 -0500
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

Danny:

Perhaps you could be more creative, descriptive, and diplomatic in your
language. The words "piece of garbage" really convey nothing which could
be used as a basis for discusson.

Like a point by point list of what (if anything) you agree with, and
what you do not agree with.

I believe that logic will get you farther than simple emotion. It might
make it possible for more persons to go into agreement with your
position.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:23 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

Philip Sheppard has published his latest version of the Structure TF
report 
(v6) at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00013.doc

It's still a piece of garbage, and it does no more than incorporate the
IPC's 
comment that no policy recommendations should come from the ALSO
separately.

It's time for our GA rep to react to this travesty.  

The ICANN Board requested comments on the ALSC Final report from the NC 
within 45 days of their November 15 announcement:  "Further resolved
[01.126] 
that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final Report from the
Internet 
community as a whole, including the DNSO Names Council, the ASO Address 
Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests that any such
comments be 
submitted within 45 days from the date of this Resolution;"

Why are we participating in a bogus analysis of the ALM which is well
past 
the deadline for comments, instead of looking at the restructuring
proposals 
for the DNSO which have been put on the table?  Why aren't we also
looking at 
the restructuring of ICANN in light of the movement toward a ccSO?  Why
is 
the TF avoiding these other issues and only acting to attack the ALM?  

Does our GA rep support the position taken in the document that "There
will 
be one additional at-large member than the status quo of five."?!! 

This is a call to arms.  Either you start fighting back for the future
of the 
At-Large or you put on your kneepads and grovel before the BC and IPC.
The 
choice is yours.  
- --
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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 03:53:17 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Diplomacy

Peter,

I no longer see the value in diplomacy when the supporters of cronyism 
finally saw fit to throw out the NC rule book so that Phil Sheppard could 
continue to engage in his shameless manipulations.  What rules will the NC 
discard next?  Instead of constituencies participating in the working groups 
of the GA, this ilk on the Council has already so twisted the Bylaws that the 
GA is totally denied working groups and can only send a solitary member to a 
TF of the NC.  The views of the GA are treated as minority comments worth 
only a single sentance in a report drafted by the BC, instead of as the 
consensus view of the bulk of the DNSO participants.

As a Council member, you have supported this perversion of the Bylaws that 
has denied the GA its voice, and you have done nothing to call an end to the 
Task Force process.  You want a creative and descriptive comment?... Fine...

You have indicated that the ccTLDs no longer desire to remain in the DNSO...  
that's OK by me... get out, you're of no help to us anyway.

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:31:13 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 04:11:53 EST, [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.  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.  

Yep and I think this also applies to any ALSO.  Individuals will never
be able to collect funds to the extent businesses can and the notion
that there is no difference between a group of businesses and a group
of individuals is fundamentally flawed.

>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."

Not just expenses but also possibly key personnel.  

>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.

I welcome the feedback on this.  There are pros and cons to having any
ALSO act within the DNSO in terms of domain name policy or directly
advise the Board.

The worry I have is that if the Board receives contradictory advice
from the DNSO and the ALSO that the DNSO will win out 99 times out of
100.   It also greatly increases the opportunities for the Board (on
advice of staff) to just pass their own personal policy with no
reference to either the DNSO or ALSO.

Now as long as there is no individual representation within the DNSO I
fully support the ALSO should advise the Board directly as some
representation is better than none.

However if individuals through perhaps the ALSO did have
representation within the DNSO it is a harder call.  The DNSO is
finely balanced at the moment between various interests and three
extra votes for individuals could make a real difference to some
votes.

To some degree I see it as whether it is better to have 100% of the
votes of an SO which will probably be ignored 99% of the time or to
have 13% of the vote of an SO which gets listened to say half the
time.

Note that regardless of which model is adopted the ALSO would still
appoint their Board members directly.

As I said at the beginning feedback is welcome on the options.  

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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:31:33 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UPDATE: Berkman Center will not webcast ICANN's Accra meetings

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:11:57 -0500, "Ben Edelman"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>David wrote:
>
>> Are you able to be more explicit about the reasons for this Ben?
>
>I can't say for sure why ICANN declined the Berkman Center's proposal --
>indeed, their staff didn't give me a reason when notifying me that they had
>declined the Berkman Center's Accra meeting tech proposal.  

Ta - this in itself answered most of my question.  I was not sure if
Berkman did not want to do it anymore or ICANN decided not to use
Berkman.  

>But certainly
>Berkman Center staff and ICANN staff have, over the past three years and
>past twelve meetings, at times had different ideas about the appropriate and
>optimal scope, technical sophistication, and robustness (backup systems,
>etc.) of meeting webcasts, as well as the associated costs that such
>facilities entail.  I actually haven't had the sort of back-and-forth
>negotiation with ICANN that would lead me to well understand their
>motivations and concerns here, but my sense is that they thought they could
>get a better service -- perhaps one that they perceive to better match their
>needs, or that they find to feature a lower total cost -- elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see what is provided.

>> Is
>> this just a one off absence due to cost or a permanent disengagement?
>
>My understanding is that ICANN may have tentatively made arrangements with
>another organization to offer webcast services at Accra.  I wouldn't want to
>presuppose how that that relationship will develop, but it seems to me
>likely that if the new organization proves satisfactory in that context,
>ICANN will stick with them going forward.

Well in either case thanks to Berkman and especially yourself and
Rebecca for your services which have been appreciated.

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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:34:47 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-06

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:02:48 +0100, Thomas Roessler
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>The names council's vote on a possible waiver of rules of procedure 
>was finished on February 6, with 10 votes in favor, 9 against, and 
>one abstention.  As pointed out by Louis Touton (and noted earlier 
>by Danny Younger), this means that the waiver was not formally 
>accepted during this vote.  Also, as Touton points out, the Names 
>Council "may not formally act through a vote conducted by e-mail 
>alone." 
><http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00116.html>, 
><http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00125.html>.

I am slightly disturbed that despite the vote having failed, that some
members of the NC are using the fact that the e-mail vote was informal
to relitigate the issue in a teleconference vote.  It would be a bad
idea to make a change to the election rules on a 2nd vote when the
change will affect the current election.

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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 23:41:00 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

At 22:31 16/02/02 +1300, DPF wrote:

>To some degree I see it as whether it is better to have 100% of the
>votes of an SO which will probably be ignored 99% of the time or to
>have 13% of the vote of an SO which gets listened to say half the
>time.
>
>Note that regardless of which model is adopted the ALSO would still
>appoint their Board members directly.
>
>As I said at the beginning feedback is welcome on the options.

At the moment *all* options look bleak.

The only way Individual DN holders will get listened to is by being able to 
give serious input in the DNSO process.
That is where problems come up, are debated and prepared for a policy 
decision by the Board.

This is why the IPC constituency is so dead set against having an IC (or an 
IDNHC)   in the DNSO.
Even *if* the Individuals finally would get their DNSO constituency, they 
have to pay the constituency fee and will still have only 3 votes. The 
balance will still be in favour of the IP and supply-side.

The At Large is a chimera. There will be regional councils that will 
somehow , at some time in the future, cough up a director.
Directors will represent regional interests, whatever they are, not global 
Individual DN holders' interests. At the least , they will be elected on 
the basis of a regional division, not an interest division.
Once seated, a  director  is supposed to look after the interests of the 
*Corporation* , which may restrict him looking after Individual Domain Name 
Holders.

   This director, unless he also happens to work for a lobbying firm or a 
big company, will be underfunded, possibly ignorant and likely  ignored, 
and unable to influence his fellow Board members during the few yearly 
meetings that the Board has.

By the time issues come to a vote at Board level, decisions will have been 
made (by the staff).
AtLarge directors will simply and brutally be outvoted.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:11:50 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for  Deleted Names

On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, at 06:19 [=GMT+0100], Alexander Svensson wrote:
> At 15.02.2002 21:58, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >Those registrars that I have checked (in alphabetical order: Dotster,
> >Enom, OpenSRS, Register.com) have an Auto Renew option. This fully takes
> >care of the problem discussed in this ICANN document. There is no need for
> >anything else. Registrars can profile themselves by offering the auto
> >renew service, or even other services that avoid losing a domain (e.g.
> >snail mail or telephone notification).
>
> I'm not so sure. E.g. Register.com's service called
> SafeRenew is simply an attempt to charge the credit card
> the renewal fee. Not everyone pays or even wants to
> pay the domain fees by credit card,

With many registrars there is no other way to pay, neither when
registrating nor when renewing a domain.

> and even for those
> who do, credit card information is also subject to change.

That is why I mentioned the extra services: "snail mail or telephone
notificiation".

By the way, I would hope that everyone will be equally worried that domain
name owners cannot be contacted within the review of the UDRP.

> >The ICANN document states:
> >
> >"Indeed, anecdotal evidence indicates that a significant portion of the
> >demand for registration of deleted domains involves domains that the
> >former registrant did not intend to have deleted. If the only names
> >that became available to the market for re-registering expired names
> >were ones that were truly no longer wanted by the original
> >registrants, the demand for expired names would be less intense, and
> >perhaps significantly so."
> >
> >This is too easy. Facts and figures are needed. Why change things, and
> >give VeriSign a new profitable monopoly, if all we have is "anecdotal
> >evidence" and speculation based upon that? Come on.
>
> First of all, I don't think that a new profitable
> monopoly has to be created to implement this. If anything,
> registry and registrar may be allowed to charge a very
> small fee for handling the late renewal. If
> 0.50-2.00 US$ are an educated guess for the core costs
> of a domain name at the registry level,
> (http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-February/001437.html)
> the late renewal fee should definitely be less.
> If -- as you seem to imply -- there was no
> big problem (i.e. if all expired domains are due to
> lack of interest of their current holders), the fee
> would simply never be charged.

Those who want to change something have to show that it makes sense. You
cannot implement something new, saying that if it isn't necessary it won't
hurt either...

> I agree that we need more information from ICANN about
> the complaints. But even if only a small portion of
> domains up for deletion are domains which their owners
> really want to keep, such a grace period is a good
> thing.

There is already a grace period. I see no problem in making that uniform
for all registrars.

> It might be even better (see fnord's article
> http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=548&mode=thread&order=0)
> to have the web site resolve to a notice "Attention,
> this domain name is about to be deleted due to
> non-payment of renewal fees."
>
> It seems to me that the only ones negatively affected
> are companies and individuals trying to make a business
> out of the current situation where at least /some/
> domains are deleted without the owner realizing it.
> This may not apply to those users who use some kind of
> Auto Renew and who keep their contact data current
> and accurate. But then again, to err is human --
> which is why I appreciate adding a bit of forgiveness
> to the domain deletion process! :)

Fine with me in principle, but without a fee on the _registry_ level. But
could we then tackle at the same time the problem of expired domains that
are not deleted, not even after a year?  Not only speculators are looking
at those names. Also people, companies, organizations that want to use
them for web, mail etc. Speculators are not the only people hoarding
domains. See e.g. number9.org.

The whole deletion process is somewhat of a mess. Part solutions to
problems, like this proposal and VeriSign's waiting list, will only make
it worse. I think it is good that ICANN (and not VeriSign) tackles the
whole problem.

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 13:16:32 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf MP3 recording 14 Feb 2002

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

In the Names Council teleconference recording on February 14, found at the
url below:
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020214.NCteleconf.mp3
the last few minutes of the teleconference are not registered on the
recording.

This is due to a slight technical error for which we apologise.

Thank you for your understanding.
DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 13:17:52 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Structure TF report draft v6

For easier discussion -- a text-only excerpt from 
the Structure TF report draft v6
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00013.doc

>[...]
>
>Recommendations of the Structure TF based on evaluation
>
>1. First principles
>An ALSO should not have the same characteristics, rights and 
>representation of the other supporting organisations. Indeed, 
>trying to fit an ALSO into an SO straitjacket will be 
>damaging to the ALSO and to ICANN consensus making. 
>
>2. Board directors. Against an objective to create a means of 
>electing ICANN at-large board directors the TF endorses the 
>ALSC proposals to create an ALSO.
>
>3. Consensus building. Against an objective to outreach 
>downwards and develop policy consensus among individual 
>domain name holders, the TF endorses the structural proposals 
>of the ALSC. 
>
>4.  Policy support to the Board. Against an objective to 
>provide policy input upwards to the Board (subsequent to 
>consensus building), the TF recommends that the following 
>structure be adopted for ALSO input on policy recommendations 
>to the Board. The three members of the proposed At-large 
>administrative council are given membership of the DNSO Names 
>Council, and participate within that body exercising voting 
>and other policy-related privileges in the same way as the 
>three representatives of the DNSO constituencies.  
>
>The three ALSO reps would have no vote in the election of 
>DNSO Board members and no policy recommendations would come 
>from the ALSO separately. Such membership would be contingent 
>on the absence of an individual domain name holders 
>constituency within the DNSO or its equivalent. 
>
>This solves at a stroke three issues:
>* the likelihood of contradictory or confusing advice 
>reaching the Board from the DNSO and the ALSO
>* creating a clear mechanism for ALSO/DNSO policy 
>interaction. 
>* avoiding duplication by DNSO constituencies in policy work 
>in both the DNSO and ALSO.
>
>Mechanistic details:
>1. ALSO is formed and directly elects 6 Board members.
>2. ALSO also elects 12 member Administrative Council (as ALSC 
>proposal but with an administrative role to organise the SO 
>and outreach downwards on policy) 
>3. ALSO Administrative Council selects 3 members (or the 3 
>top geographically diverse of the directly-elected council 
>election list) appointed to Names Council to input on policy 
>matters. 
>4. The individuals petitioning for an individual domain name 
>holders constituency within the DNSO are encouraged to 
>participate in the ALSO and become AL Administrative Council 
>members and reps to the NC. 
>5. The GA reverts to its intended role of uniting all DNSO 
>constituencies (and expands to include the AL Administrative 
>Council and NC reps). 
>
>5.  Threshold criteria for ALSO membership before elections 
>could start.
>It is critical that unambiguous criteria be set up to gauge 
>whether the ALSO is in fact ready to operate as an ICANN 
>supporting organisation. The ALSO will need sufficient 
>resources and interest levels to ensure that participation in 
>the SO will result in meaningful and significant 
>representation for individual domain name holders.
>
>The first test should be an appropriate adaptation of the 
>DNSO criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies. In 
>addition the following points are key.
>
>- Membership
>At some point a threshold will need to be established as 
>defining "significant representation." It is beyond the scope 
>of this report to define that threshold but it may be useful 
>to consider a rationale for definition and establish 
>parameters.
>
>- An upper parameter
>The ALSC report there were 143,789 on the first At-Large e-
>mail list, that 76,183 were validated to vote and that 34,035 
>voted. Any new process should do at least as well, so a 
>threshold of 30,000 seems reasonable for an upper parameter 
>for ALSO membership before elections can begin. 
>
>- A lower parameter
>In North America 3,449 voted in the first elections. There 
>are over 150,000,000 Internet users in North America, so this 
>is 0.0023%. World wide there are around 500,000,000 Internet 
>users so 0.0023% is 11,500.  Charging for membership will 
>reduce this to say 10%. So set 1000 as the lower parameter.
>
>The report recommends that a threshold is set at a figure 
>between 1000 and  30,000.
>
>- Other criteria
>In addition to membership, criteria on the ability to 
>effectively keep members informed, and adequate financing for 
>meetings and dues payments are crucial to ensuring that the 
>ALSO can support its mission and will not be subject to 
>capture by a small group.

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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 06:34:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Danny:
>
> Perhaps you could be more creative, descriptive, and diplomatic in your
> language. The words "piece of garbage" really convey nothing which could
> be used as a basis for discusson.
>
> Like a point by point list of what (if anything) you agree with, and
> what you do not agree with.

  Unless I miss my guess when Danny said that it was a "piece of garbage",
that he did not agree with any part of the TF Report (v6).  At least
that was very clear to me.  Hence I found his use of "piece of garbage"
very descriptive and immediately understood what his opinion on the
TF Report (v6) is.

>
>
> I believe that logic will get you farther than simple emotion. It might
> make it possible for more persons to go into agreement with your
> position.

  I don't know if I agree with Dannys opinion or not yet.  However
again I had no trouble understanding his "Logic" with regards to his
position on the TF Report (v6).  I am a bit dismayed that you seem
to have had a problem with Dannys logic however...

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 2:23 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)
>
> Philip Sheppard has published his latest version of the Structure TF
> report
> (v6) at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00013.doc
>
> It's still a piece of garbage, and it does no more than incorporate the
> IPC's
> comment that no policy recommendations should come from the ALSO
> separately.
>
> It's time for our GA rep to react to this travesty.
>
> The ICANN Board requested comments on the ALSC Final report from the NC
> within 45 days of their November 15 announcement:  "Further resolved
> [01.126]
> that the Board invites comments on the ALSC Final Report from the
> Internet
> community as a whole, including the DNSO Names Council, the ASO Address
> Council and the PSO Protocol Council, and requests that any such
> comments be
> submitted within 45 days from the date of this Resolution;"
>
> Why are we participating in a bogus analysis of the ALM which is well
> past
> the deadline for comments, instead of looking at the restructuring
> proposals
> for the DNSO which have been put on the table?  Why aren't we also
> looking at
> the restructuring of ICANN in light of the movement toward a ccSO?  Why
> is
> the TF avoiding these other issues and only acting to attack the ALM?
>
> Does our GA rep support the position taken in the document that "There
> will
> be one additional at-large member than the status quo of five."?!!
>
> This is a call to arms.  Either you start fighting back for the future
> of the
> At-Large or you put on your kneepads and grovel before the BC and IPC.
> The
> choice is yours.
> --
> 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

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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 07:11:42 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for  Deleted Names

Marc and all assembly members,

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, at 06:19 [=GMT+0100], Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > At 15.02.2002 21:58, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>

- - snippage -

>
> >
> > It seems to me that the only ones negatively affected
> > are companies and individuals trying to make a business
> > out of the current situation where at least /some/
> > domains are deleted without the owner realizing it.
> > This may not apply to those users who use some kind of
> > Auto Renew and who keep their contact data current
> > and accurate. But then again, to err is human --
> > which is why I appreciate adding a bit of forgiveness
> > to the domain deletion process! :)
>
> Fine with me in principle, but without a fee on the _registry_ level. But
> could we then tackle at the same time the problem of expired domains that
> are not deleted, not even after a year?  Not only speculators are looking
> at those names. Also people, companies, organizations that want to use
> them for web, mail etc. Speculators are not the only people hoarding
> domains. See e.g. number9.org.

  Good points here Marc.  Agreed that that no fee is necessary
or even reasonable at the REGISTRY level.  I would also
strongly agree that Domain Names that are not deleted
and are still active even after more than  year needs to be
addressed as par to the solution to the *Delete* problem.

>
>
> The whole deletion process is somewhat of a mess. Part solutions to
> problems, like this proposal and VeriSign's waiting list, will only make
> it worse. I think it is good that ICANN (and not VeriSign) tackles the
> whole problem.

  I think you mean Kent Crispin and not Verisign don't you?  >;)
In any event, yes this should be the kinds of issues that ICANN
addresses.  I am somewhat skeptical as to whether their solution,
if any, will be a complete one...

>
>
> --
> 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 #1041
*************************