Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1042
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Sunday, February 17 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1042

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

Date: 16 Feb 2002 13:34:47 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Alex, assembly

On Sat, 2002-02-16 at 05:19, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 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.

In all honesty, there are very few who do not use CC payments, and the
reasoning for not being able to pay small amounts to a possible
constituency (cost per payment) is the basic reasoning for that, if the
amounts paid for registration or renewal were paid by bank, several
points in the registrar agreement would not be worked out according to
that agreement, most important being one needs to have ensured payment.

> 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.

The mere thought of having to pay additional fees to the registry for
something registrars are doing already and free of charge is a "stomach
turner" Tucows / OpenSRS handles the matter in the perfect way, without
any charges to anyone whatsoever.

The earlier given example that a lot of money would be tied up by these
domains in their "grace period" is not completely true, since the
registrars have 3 months to pay those bills in which time the fees get
returned so payment stays stale.

I support the idea being enforced to all registrars, but then make sure
they keep doing it for free, if they want to charge their customers,
that's up to them, after all, it is a free market (still)  but it is not
something the registry needs to be involved in and yet grab more money.

It is my opinion that ICANN should start viewing the registry for what
it is, a REGISTER and not as a business making new products and selling
them, that is the part the registrars need to take care off, not a
registry. 
I wonder what people would say if their local deed offices started
making new "moneymaking" markets with their stronghold on the registers
they hold, or more European, when the town registry (where they hold
your birth certificate, and other paperwork) would start inventing "new
articles to sell" 

Stay with basics, registries are made to register (sic) and stick to
that, not to "make markets".

abel

- --
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 07:21:40 -0800
From: "Genie Livingstone" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VGRS Answers to WLS Questions

> Chuck Gomes write :Proposal have been posted at:
>
> http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
>
> Verisign has created a document to respond to the questions that had
> been submitted regarding the WLS. Their responses are at:
>
> http://verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf
>

Verisign Registry confirms that :

b) What mechanisms will be in place to force a Registrar to delete an
expired name in a timely fashion when the WLS holder is using a different
registrar?
o VGRS has no way of knowing why a registrar does not delete a domain name
registration nor does it have the responsibility to require a registrar to
do so. It could be because the registrant renewed it, because there is an
active dispute involving the name, because the name is associated with a
bankruptcy, etc. So there does not seem to be a reasonable way to implement
such a mechanism. Additionally, it is not the function of the registry to
police this. (page 19 para 20b)

c) What is the longest time after a domain has expired that a domain MUST be
deleted? (This will affect the value of the WLS subscription, if domains can
be hoarded and not deleted even 2 years after expiry, for instance)
o There is no defined time limit when a domain name registration must be
deleted. (Page 20 paragraph 20c)

Unless this issue is resolved FIRST and we have a uniform policy on time
limit for expiration of domain names, which is consistently adhered to by
Registrars, namely Verisign Registrar as they hold the largest pool of
domains with expiration dates older than 90 days - WLS is not acceptable in
any shape or form.

If there is no defined time limit when a domain name registration must be
deleted, what stops Verisign Registrar from hoarding the domain name
indefinitely if it knows that its sister company Verisign Registry stands to
profit more by hoarding the name via collecting it's $35.00 for indefinite
subscriptions to WLS?   Integrity? Honesty? Good business practices?  Naah!

Sincerely,
Genie Livingstone
eyeondomain.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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:04:28 -0500
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Diplomacy

Thank you for your clear and direct ststement. 

You seem to disregard the fact that the GA includes the ccTLDs. In any
case your remarks below leave me with no desire to support your ideas,
even the ones I might agree with.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 3:53 AM
To: [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

- --
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 12:37:25 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Diplomacy

Peter,

You're not fooling anyone.  You intend to cozy up with the BC and IPC so that 
they will continue to support the effort towards a ccSO.  You have been doing 
nothing more than voting their party line for months.  Tell us... how did you 
vote on the waiver of the rules that allowed Phil Sheppard to stand yet again 
for reelection?  How did your ccTLD colleagues vote?  Redundant questions, we 
already know the answer.

When's the last time you cast your vote for any GA initiative?  Let me know 
if you need a historian to research the archives... 

- --
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 19:01:00 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Diplomacy

At 17:04 16/02/02, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>You seem to disregard the fact that the GA includes the ccTLDs.

This is a interesting point. Would you mean you consider the GA as a cross 
SO assembly: for y the DNSO and the ccSO?

This is a point I do support as I do not believe the ALSC will make it in 
creating a $15 / year / members ALSO able to numerically control the 
existing ICANN community. And I agree with Mike Roberts that under that 
figure it cannot work.

Soon or late the DNSO/GA will become the ICANN/GA since it is the only free 
all the year long forum open to every stakeholder. May be will they chage 
the name, but the Members will stay.

Jefsey

- --
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 13:04:26 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Diplomacy

Saturday, Saturday, February 16, 2002, 8:04:28 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Thank you for your clear and direct ststement. 

> You seem to disregard the fact that the GA includes the ccTLDs.

Weird, they seem to act like they have their own SO already, and want
no part of anything.

> In any
> case your remarks below leave me with no desire to support your ideas,
> even the ones I might agree with.

Do the GA a favor and don't paint Danny's ideas as "our" ideas.  He
had a problem developing consensus when he was chair, he certainly
doesn't speak for us now.

- -- 
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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:04:14 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Diplomacy

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> You seem to disregard the fact that the GA includes the ccTLDs. In any 
> case your remarks below leave me with no desire to support your ideas, 
> even the ones I might agree with.

I'd prefer if, on this mailing list, ideas could be judged, supported, 
or fought by their merit, and not by their origin.  It's not a sign of 
maturity or intelligence (nor is it helpful for the purposes of this GA, 
or the DNSO as a whole) to fight an idea just because it is proposed by 
Danny Younger (or Joop Teernstra, or William Walsh, or Verisign, Inc, or 
the Business, Intellectual Property, or ccTLD Constituencies).

More generally, may I ask that those who are posting in a mostly 
emotional manner try to turn on their brains before sending messages to 
this list, and refrain from unnecessary attacks and flames against 
individuals or constituencies?  Such attacks are entirely unnecessary, 
inappropriate, and could poison this list's climate to a point where a 
  discussion of issues is no longer possible.

Have a nice week-end,
- -- 
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 13:58:32 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

Well said, Joop.  I agree completely with your comments here.

Saturday, Saturday, February 16, 2002, 2:41:00 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> 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

- -- 
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: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 15:59:27 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for  Deleted Names

Hello Marc!

At 16.02.2002 12:11, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>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.

Indeed, but at least email, fax and snail mail 
notification is required for the UDRP. It is 
only optional (and probably happens in few
cases) as far as domain deletions are concerned.

>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...

Indeed, but obviously not all domain holders have
exactly the same problems. Should data from ICANN
(Internic registrar reports) and registrars show
that unintended domain deletions indeed happen
(and are not extraordinarily rare), it is necessary 
to safeguard registrants' interests more strictly. 
And as a bonus, I think it really won't hurt either!

>> 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.

Agree.

>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.

If we were to start from scratch, I'm sure we could
develop a lot of clever approaches to the deletion
process instead of the current "somewhat of a mess".
Unfortunately, the current situation has a historical
background:
- -- Individuals and companies try to make a living 
from getting deleted domains and reselling them
- -- Companies make a living from delivering tools and
registry access to them
- -- The way the domains are deleted leads to a
technical competition, a "brute force" approach
with unequal chances of registering a deleted domain
- -- Registrars have an interest in informing the
domain holder about an upcoming deletion. This may
become different if they can make more money by 
not giving it back to the pool or if they have
significant stakes in the "dropping names industry".
- -- Registrants have an interest in current and 
accurate data in the Whois database so that they 
can be warned before a deletion. This may become 
different if the Whois database is abused and e.g. 
registrants stop giving their correct phone and fax 
number for privacy reasons.

I'm afraid it is going to be (too?) difficult to come 
to a consensus on a total all-in-one redesign. Instead,
I think we will have to work on partial solutions
for domain deletions (including notice and hoarding), 
domain transfers between registrars and re-registrations 
of deleted domains. VeriSign is free to make a proposal
and try to get community consensus (it doesn't look
to me as if they have succeeded yet...); I don't
think a proposal has a greater chance if it comes
from ICANN staff. Anyone is free to propose such a
new approach, and I think the GA list is probably
one of the best places to gather reactions (beware
of the sharks!).

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 16:18:45 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

Hello Joop!

At 16.02.2002 23:41, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>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 an individual (domain name holders) constituency
is a necessary addition to the Names Council (unless the
DNSO structure is revised completely). But according to
your view, wouldn't it even make more sense to integrate
the ALSO policy-making /on domain names/ into the DNSO
process? 

>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.

I'm not so sure about that this will be the main
division (looking at the current At Large directors,
I don't have the impression that the main difference
between e.g. Karl Auerbach, Ivan Campos and Masanobu 
Katoh is that Auerbach represents North-American,
Campos represents Latin American and Caribbean
interests and Katoh represents Asian interests).
*But* even to the extent that this happens, I do not
view it as a problem that in cases where there is
a regional interest (e.g. special interest in IDN
in Asia), it is represented.

>Once seated, a  director  is supposed to look after the interests of the *Corporation* , which may restrict him looking after Individual Domain Name Holders.

The same applies to business and regional interests
(in theory and practice...)

>  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.

If an At Large region selects an ignorant director, it's
their fault. Funding certainly remains a problem, and
I'm afraid the playing field will never be completely
levelled. 

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: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:11:36 +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 15:59 [=GMT+0100], Alexander Svensson wrote:
> At 16.02.2002 12:11, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >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.
>
> Indeed, but at least email, fax and snail mail
> notification is required for the UDRP. It is
> only optional (and probably happens in few
> cases) as far as domain deletions are concerned.

Yes, but the grace period for responding to a UDRP complaint is way
shorter than that for domain renewals. If your email doesn't work (and
since a fax is not always in the whois info...) you are lost. Not
responding nearly always means losing the domain. I really think these are
similar situations.

> >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...
>
> Indeed, but obviously not all domain holders have
> exactly the same problems. Should data from ICANN
> (Internic registrar reports) and registrars show
> that unintended domain deletions indeed happen
> (and are not extraordinarily rare), it is necessary
> to safeguard registrants' interests more strictly.
> And as a bonus, I think it really won't hurt either!

We agree then: ICANN must show first that there is more than 'anecdotal
evidence'. Making chances based on anecdotal evidence is _always_ a
mistake.

> >> 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.
>
> Agree.
>
> >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.
>
> If we were to start from scratch, I'm sure we could
> develop a lot of clever approaches to the deletion
> process instead of the current "somewhat of a mess".
> Unfortunately, the current situation has a historical
> background:

Sure, but why does this mean that we cannot approach the problem in a
fundamental way? I don't think you show why that is the case.

> -- Individuals and companies try to make a living
> from getting deleted domains and reselling them
> -- Companies make a living from delivering tools and
> registry access to them
> -- The way the domains are deleted leads to a
> technical competition, a "brute force" approach
> with unequal chances of registering a deleted domain

The proposal for a different form of a grace period doesn't chance this,
it only postpones the 'grabbing', and perhaps reduces the number of
expiring domains slightly. Most of the domains that drop now, seem to come
from frustrated 'speculators', who were unable to sell them. (Thus it
says in several recent reports about domain name registrations. No, I have
no hard evidence either :-)

> -- Registrars have an interest in informing the
> domain holder about an upcoming deletion. This may
> become different if they can make more money by
> not giving it back to the pool or if they have
> significant stakes in the "dropping names industry".

Indeed. Therefore a complete solution, not patchwork. The more patchwork,
the more chances for abuse.

> -- Registrants have an interest in current and
> accurate data in the Whois database so that they
> can be warned before a deletion. This may become
> different if the Whois database is abused and e.g.
> registrants stop giving their correct phone and fax
> number for privacy reasons.

The solution to this simple: Hide those privacy sensitive data, and make
them only available to those who can show they have a legitamate use of
them, e.g. IP lawyers, or 'the law'. Here again, a fundamental solution is
required. Not patchwork.

> I'm afraid it is going to be (too?) difficult to come
> to a consensus on a total all-in-one redesign. Instead,
> I think we will have to work on partial solutions
> for domain deletions (including notice and hoarding),
> domain transfers between registrars and re-registrations
> of deleted domains.

I do not agree. I for one will oppose patchwork solutions. Also it takes
much more of our time to do this in several rounds. It is most 'natural'
to solve the expiring/deletion problem in ONE go. We are talking about ONE
thing, seen from two perspectives.

> VeriSign is free to make a proposal
> and try to get community consensus (it doesn't look
> to me as if they have succeeded yet...); I don't
> think a proposal has a greater chance if it comes
> from ICANN staff. Anyone is free to propose such a
> new approach, and I think the GA list is probably
> one of the best places to gather reactions (beware
> of the sharks!).

Tactics I leave to you :-) This _is_, however, a matter for ICANN. It has
now, shortly before Accra, been put up by staff (I guess). I do not see
why it would be worse if staff made a more complete proposal, including
rules for deletions...

- --
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, 17 Feb 2002 09:13:33 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

Regardless of whether you like Danny's choice of words or not, it appears to
me that what he is saying is probably quite accurate, at least with regard
to the fact the report is primarily one prepared by Philip.  I know for a
fact that the gTLD Registry Constituency submitted fairly significant
comments to the TF only to be largely ignored.  There was not even any
effort to discuss the points we put forward let alone consider any of them
in the task force report.

Unfortunately, this has become the standard operating procedure in the NC.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1042
*************************