Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1043
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Monday, February 18 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1043

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

Date: 17 Feb 2002 14:40:19 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

with respect to all, is there anything that stops the GA from replacing
her representative ?

abel

On Sun, 2002-02-17 at 14:13, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 16:20:49 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Hello everybody,
- --
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 16:34:42 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Hello everybody,

Providing comment to an already 3 days old text ...

  Quote from:
  http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm

     "Probably the most common type of unintentional deletion 
      is caused by registrant mistake. Registrants sometimes 
      inadvertently fail to renew registrations due to a clerical 
      mistake or failure to receive a renewal notice (usually as 
      a result of failing to keep registration contact information 
      up-to-date.) If a registrant moves or changes Internet 
      service providers, the registrant might not receive a notice 
      from its registrar informing it that a renewal payment is due. 
      Also, some registrants may accidentally overlook a renewal 
      notice or mistake it for a solicitation or spam. Section 
      3.7.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement requires 
      registrars to cancel the registration of any domain name 
      for which the registrant fails to pay a renewal fee at the 
      conclusion of a fixed registration period."

  Quote from:
  http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.7.5

      "3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to 
       Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the 
       conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on 
       behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee 
       within the time specified in a second notice or reminder 
       shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result 
       in cancellation of the registration. In the event that 
       ICANN adopts a specification or policy concerning procedures 
       for handling expiration of registrations, Registrar shall 
       abide by that specification or policy."

We could probably learn from other that domain names services.

The public service subscriptions are much longer history that 
Internet domain names under ICANN rules. They certainly vary 
from country to country, but the spectra of solutions for them 
could bring us some ideas for Internet domain names.

In France we have a simple and clever payment feature for all 
kind of public services (water supply, electricity supply, 
telephone supply, Internet access supply, etc.), whether they 
are provided by public or private companies. When you subscribe 
to such services, you usually want them to be renewed without 
getting bothered periodically. The default situation is that 
you will renew unless stated otherwise (and not that you will 
not renew unless explicitly re-subscribed). And you back it up
by allowing the public service company to charge your bank account. 
The advantage of being granted the payment is big enough to 
make the public service companies taking care about their 
reputation. Which is tourn makes consumer confident.

   1. The subscriber sign a contract with a supplier, and allow 
      the supplier to charge its bank account periodically. 
      The supplier is sending few weeks in advance a printed 
      invoice indicating when the bank account is going to be 
      charged next time and the amount of money. 

   2. The subscriber may change his mind any time, with a short 
      notice, and cancel his subscription. But because the default 
      is well adapted to the most common situation, the subscriber 
      may also spent his summer vacation in Greece without 
      bothering about electricity bills, and will not get into 
      dark once at home.

I tend to believe that ICANN rules for the service on domain 
names should be oriented towards stable customers. 
As a practical action it can be that a "long term option" 
based on a kind of automatic periodical payment could be added 
to Registrant's choice and allow him to keep his companies 
names for business or communication for unlimited duration. 

Adding any number of days for grace period does not change a iota 
a logic in deletion problem IMHO.

I think that the current ICANN text "ra-agreement-17may01.htm",
is too strongly intended for competition between Registrars
and does forget the basic need of Registrant for long term 
stability and visibility on the Internet.
Simultaneously I wonder how the French example could help 
into gTLD global planet situation.
No doubt that a Registrar incorporated in France may already
provide an automatic bank payment to its Registrants, therefore 
grant de facto a "long term option" to its stable customers.
There is certainly some marketing efforts to be made.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
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 10:52:50 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Deleted Names

Good idea, but it does not solve the problem quoted below - the
Registrant who didn't get notified. Further, NACHA requires
notification to the consumer before money is taken from their bank
account.

The period of time that the domain name does not resolve is intended
as a last ditch effort to make sure the Registrant no longer wants the
name. The assumption is that the Registrant will notice that his web
site and/or e-mail is not working. I suspect the Registrant's first
call will be to the firm which is hosting his web site or e-mail.
Consequently, an additional idea is notification to the Tech contract
(assuming it really is the systems admin of the company hosting the
web site or e-mail) that the name has expired. This may help, but it
also will not solve the problem.

Personally, I don't think there is a total resolution for this
problem, but there may be ways to improve the situation.

Sunday, February 17, 2002, 9:34:42 AM, Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]> wrote:

EP> Hello everybody,

EP> Providing comment to an already 3 days old text ...

EP>   Quote from:
EP>   http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm

EP>      "Probably the most common type of unintentional deletion 
EP>       is caused by registrant mistake. Registrants sometimes 
EP>       inadvertently fail to renew registrations due to a clerical 
EP>       mistake or failure to receive a renewal notice (usually as 
EP>       a result of failing to keep registration contact information 
EP>       up-to-date.) If a registrant moves or changes Internet 
EP>       service providers, the registrant might not receive a notice 
EP>       from its registrar informing it that a renewal payment is due. 
EP>       Also, some registrants may accidentally overlook a renewal 
EP>       notice or mistake it for a solicitation or spam. Section 
EP>       3.7.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement requires 
EP>       registrars to cancel the registration of any domain name 
EP>       for which the registrant fails to pay a renewal fee at the 
EP>       conclusion of a fixed registration period."

EP>   Quote from:
EP>   http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.7.5

EP>       "3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to 
EP>        Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the 
EP>        conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on 
EP>        behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee 
EP>        within the time specified in a second notice or reminder 
EP>        shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result 
EP>        in cancellation of the registration. In the event that 
EP>        ICANN adopts a specification or policy concerning procedures 
EP>        for handling expiration of registrations, Registrar shall 
EP>        abide by that specification or policy."

EP> We could probably learn from other that domain names services.

EP> The public service subscriptions are much longer history that 
EP> Internet domain names under ICANN rules. They certainly vary 
EP> from country to country, but the spectra of solutions for them 
EP> could bring us some ideas for Internet domain names.

EP> In France we have a simple and clever payment feature for all 
EP> kind of public services (water supply, electricity supply, 
EP> telephone supply, Internet access supply, etc.), whether they 
EP> are provided by public or private companies. When you subscribe 
EP> to such services, you usually want them to be renewed without 
EP> getting bothered periodically. The default situation is that 
EP> you will renew unless stated otherwise (and not that you will 
EP> not renew unless explicitly re-subscribed). And you back it up
EP> by allowing the public service company to charge your bank account. 
EP> The advantage of being granted the payment is big enough to 
EP> make the public service companies taking care about their 
EP> reputation. Which is tourn makes consumer confident.

EP>    1. The subscriber sign a contract with a supplier, and allow 
EP>       the supplier to charge its bank account periodically. 
EP>       The supplier is sending few weeks in advance a printed 
EP>       invoice indicating when the bank account is going to be 
EP>       charged next time and the amount of money. 

EP>    2. The subscriber may change his mind any time, with a short 
EP>       notice, and cancel his subscription. But because the default 
EP>       is well adapted to the most common situation, the subscriber 
EP>       may also spent his summer vacation in Greece without 
EP>       bothering about electricity bills, and will not get into 
EP>       dark once at home.

EP> I tend to believe that ICANN rules for the service on domain 
EP> names should be oriented towards stable customers. 
EP> As a practical action it can be that a "long term option" 
EP> based on a kind of automatic periodical payment could be added 
EP> to Registrant's choice and allow him to keep his companies 
EP> names for business or communication for unlimited duration. 

EP> Adding any number of days for grace period does not change a iota 
EP> a logic in deletion problem IMHO.

EP> I think that the current ICANN text "ra-agreement-17may01.htm",
EP> is too strongly intended for competition between Registrars
EP> and does forget the basic need of Registrant for long term 
EP> stability and visibility on the Internet.
EP> Simultaneously I wonder how the French example could help 
EP> into gTLD global planet situation.
EP> No doubt that a Registrar incorporated in France may already
EP> provide an automatic bank payment to its Registrants, therefore 
EP> grant de facto a "long term option" to its stable customers.
EP> There is certainly some marketing efforts to be made.

EP> Elisabeth Porteneuve

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

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 13:14:01 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] On Accra agenda?

Dear Mr. Cerf,

On December 17 you were kind enough to advise that certain GA concerns would 
be addressed at an upcoming Board meeting.  Will these concerns be placed on 
the agenda for Accra?

Best wishes,
Danny Younger
- ----------------------

Danny,

thanks for drawing this problem to our attention. 

I will place it on the agenda for an upcoming board
meeting.

vint

At 05:09 PM 12/17/2001 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear members of the Board:
>
>Since the early days of the formation of the DNSO, there has been an ongoing 
>debate regarding the respective roles of the General Assembly and the Names 
>Council.  This debate first took shape at the Berlin informal meeting of the 
>provisional Names Council:   
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990527.NCberlin.html
>
>     "Robert Hall - The work of the DNSO is done in the General Assembly
>
>     Javier Sola - No, the Names Council does the work
>
>     Antony Van Couvering - The Singapore meeting came up with a set of 
>principles that reflects a    compromise between the DNSO group and the 
Paris 
>Draft group - and the compromise is that the General Assembly does the work 
>through research groups and the Names Council manages and facilitates 
>consensus.
>
>     Jon Englund - [Goes over history of the bylaws]
>
>     Rob Hall - Is it appropriate to ask the ICANN Board to talk about the 
>intent of the bylaws?"
>
>
>Mr. Hall's question remains as valid today as when it was first posed over 
>three years ago.  
>
>When we look back at the bylaws, we note that the original bylaws stated:  
>"The Domain Name Supporting Organization shall create a Names Council to 
make 
>recommendations regarding TLDs, including operation, assignment and 
>management of the domain name system and other related subjects." 
>http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-06nov98.htm
>
>The role of the Council was defined as that of a body that would forward 
>recommendations (which ostensibly were based upon the work-product of the 
>General Assembly as per the above-cited compromise).
>
>After a period of time, the bylaws were amended to include the following:    
>"(The NC) shall adopt such procedures and policies as it sees fit to carry 
>out that responsibility (the management of the consensus building process), 
>including the designation of such research or drafting committees, working 
>groups and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry 
>out the substantive work of the DNSO.  Such bodies shall include at least 
one 
>representative nominated by each recognized Constituency..."  
>http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-31mar99.htm#VI-B 
>
>The clear intent of this amendment was to designate the Assembly as the home 
>for all research and DNSO-related consensus-building work, and to make sure 
>that such bodies in the spirit of fairness included (at a bare minimum) one 
>nominated representative from each constituency.
>
>This language was modified six months later to state:  "Each recognized 
>Constituency shall be invited to participate in each of such bodies."  This 
>change was suggested by ICANN staff who provided the following commentary:  
>"Eliminates the possibility that one constituency would try to veto the 
>creation of a working group by simply refusing to participate".  
>http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws-amend-redline-8oct99.htm
>
>At that point in time it was understood that working groups of the GA would 
>handle the substantive work of the DNSO, that constituencies would be 
>cordially invited to participate in those GA bodies (and could decline 
should 
>they choose to exercise that option), and that based on the work of those GA 
>bodies, the Council would tender recommendations.  The overriding concern of 
>the Board was that any one group might act to veto the creation of an open 
>working group.
>
>At the same time that this change in the bylaws was effected, another change 
>simultaneously occured.  There was a clause in the bylaws that was 
>eliminated.  That clause stated:  "(j) The NC shall establish, subject to 
>review and approval by the Board, an appropriate mechanism for review of 
>grievances and/or reconsideration."  In eliminating this clause, the staff 
>commented:  "deleted reconsideration language because Board review is 
>sufficient protection."
>
>We have now reached the point where the General Assembly requires the 
>protection that can be afforded by Board Review.   The creation of open 
>working groups is repeatedly being vetoed by the Names Council to the 
>detriment of the General Assembly.  The very activity that this Board chose 
>to guard against is now routinely being flaunted by the Names Council.
>
>Instead of constituencies being invited to participate in the bodies of the 
>GA, the Council has manipulated procedures so that the GA is now only 
allowed 
>one representative on a body of the NC (task force), and no GA bodies are 
>ever "designated" by the Council.
>
>This perversion of the intent of the bylaws has led to acrimony, 
>divisiveness, and has greatly contributed to the dysfunctional state of the 
>DNSO.  The General Assembly is cognizant of the fact that the current 
>state-of-affairs in the DNSO is less-than-ideal, and yet has abided by 
>processes stipulated and has submitted well over 3500 comments pertaining to 
>review-related issues.  We have also put forth a proposal regarding a 
>possible restructuring of the DNSO:  
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-DNSO-Motion-Reorg-vote.html  
>
>We note that in response to our concerns, the Council has submitted to the 
>Board a Review task force report that instead paints the picture that all is 
>rosy, and that (after a year-long review) no changes in the DNSO are 
>required.  We strongly disagree.
>
>The General Assembly needs the benefit of a Board review of this matter as 
>the future of working groups and the intent of the bylaws remains at issue.
>
>Your assistance in this matter will be highly appreciated.
>
>Best regards,
>Danny Younger 

- --
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 13:18:28 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: On Accra agenda?

although the agenda is still somewhat fluid the question of 
organizational structure will be on the table since we must
make decisions at least with regard to the proposed At Large
Support Organization. I expect the discussion will range beyond
that and DNSO matters strike me as falling within the range
of possible discussion.

vint

At 01:14 PM 2/17/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>Dear Mr. Cerf,
>
>On December 17 you were kind enough to advise that certain GA concerns would 
>be addressed at an upcoming Board meeting.  Will these concerns be placed on 
>the agenda for Accra?
>
>Best wishes,
>Danny Younger

- --
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 13:49:20 -0500
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for Delet ed Names

Elisabeth, your post is most instructive. 

Yesterday, a similar discussion came up very briefly in the Registrars
Constituency meeting during a discussion about the work of the Transfer TF. 

I suspect that we can learn from adjacent industry's who have gone through
the introduction of competition and see whether any illustrations or
approaches can be helpful to us, both in deleted names and in transfers.

Regards, Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 10:35 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Fw: Discussion Paper: Redemption Grace Periods for
Deleted Names

Hello everybody,

Providing comment to an already 3 days old text ...

  Quote from:
  http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-proposal-14feb02.htm

     "Probably the most common type of unintentional deletion 
      is caused by registrant mistake. Registrants sometimes 
      inadvertently fail to renew registrations due to a clerical 
      mistake or failure to receive a renewal notice (usually as 
      a result of failing to keep registration contact information 
      up-to-date.) If a registrant moves or changes Internet 
      service providers, the registrant might not receive a notice 
      from its registrar informing it that a renewal payment is due. 
      Also, some registrants may accidentally overlook a renewal 
      notice or mistake it for a solicitation or spam. Section 
      3.7.5 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement requires 
      registrars to cancel the registration of any domain name 
      for which the registrant fails to pay a renewal fee at the 
      conclusion of a fixed registration period."

  Quote from:
  http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.7.5

      "3.7.5 Registrar shall register Registered Names to 
       Registered Name Holders only for fixed periods. At the 
       conclusion of the registration period, failure by or on 
       behalf of the Registered Name Holder to pay a renewal fee 
       within the time specified in a second notice or reminder 
       shall, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, result 
       in cancellation of the registration. In the event that 
       ICANN adopts a specification or policy concerning procedures 
       for handling expiration of registrations, Registrar shall 
       abide by that specification or policy."

We could probably learn from other that domain names services.

The public service subscriptions are much longer history that 
Internet domain names under ICANN rules. They certainly vary 
from country to country, but the spectra of solutions for them 
could bring us some ideas for Internet domain names.

In France we have a simple and clever payment feature for all 
kind of public services (water supply, electricity supply, 
telephone supply, Internet access supply, etc.), whether they 
are provided by public or private companies. When you subscribe 
to such services, you usually want them to be renewed without 
getting bothered periodically. The default situation is that 
you will renew unless stated otherwise (and not that you will 
not renew unless explicitly re-subscribed). And you back it up
by allowing the public service company to charge your bank account. 
The advantage of being granted the payment is big enough to 
make the public service companies taking care about their 
reputation. Which is tourn makes consumer confident.

   1. The subscriber sign a contract with a supplier, and allow 
      the supplier to charge its bank account periodically. 
      The supplier is sending few weeks in advance a printed 
      invoice indicating when the bank account is going to be 
      charged next time and the amount of money. 

   2. The subscriber may change his mind any time, with a short 
      notice, and cancel his subscription. But because the default 
      is well adapted to the most common situation, the subscriber 
      may also spent his summer vacation in Greece without 
      bothering about electricity bills, and will not get into 
      dark once at home.

I tend to believe that ICANN rules for the service on domain 
names should be oriented towards stable customers. 
As a practical action it can be that a "long term option" 
based on a kind of automatic periodical payment could be added 
to Registrant's choice and allow him to keep his companies 
names for business or communication for unlimited duration. 

Adding any number of days for grace period does not change a iota 
a logic in deletion problem IMHO.

I think that the current ICANN text "ra-agreement-17may01.htm",
is too strongly intended for competition between Registrars
and does forget the basic need of Registrant for long term 
stability and visibility on the Internet.
Simultaneously I wonder how the French example could help 
into gTLD global planet situation.
No doubt that a Registrar incorporated in France may already
provide an automatic bank payment to its Registrants, therefore 
grant de facto a "long term option" to its stable customers.
There is certainly some marketing efforts to be made.

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
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: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 14:49:26 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Structure TF

The NC Structure Task Force was commissioned after the Montevideo session in 
which the NC Chair warranted that the Council would "look at structural 
issues - seeking constituency consensus re possible ccSO, ALSC report, 
individuals constituency... 
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-pf-090901.html

Although the Chair of this TF has written, "I propose we aim to produce an 
initial report for 31 January just on the ALSC proposals and evaluate other 
proposals from 1 February onwards", there does not appear to be any movement 
on the part of the Chair to examine these other proposals (including the 
restructuring of the DNSO as proposed by the GA).

Further, the most current version of the Structure Task Force report does not 
appear to include any of the significant comments and observations tendered 
by the gTLDs, the NCDNHC, the GA, or the ccTLDs.   

At one point, the TF Chair wrote:  "If you believe in the course of the work 
I express bias to a BC perspective against
the other constituencies let me know."  

I believe that such bias continues to be demonstrated, and ask that 
consideration be given to allowing this TF to select its own neutral chair in 
accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the NC.  Perhaps another author can 
better represent the collective views of the DNSO.

- --
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 15:23:48 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure TF Report (v6)

Chuck and all assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.

  This does not seem to sound very positive with respects to the NC or
the Structure TF.  In fact, as Danny, myself and others have purported
a WG approach would seem to have been a better method of approaching
the perceived structure problems with the DNSO...

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

Yes very unfortunate! :(  It would seem so much so that perhaps each
constituency should take a vote on the whole of this TF's Report as a
way of letting the NC know where each constituency stands on this
Report.

>
>
> 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

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: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:26:34 +0100
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Structure TF

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C1B85E.5B9347E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am surprised at the comments of Mr Younger with respect to the =
on-going work of the Structure task force.

Scope
The TF agreed to first comment on at-large. We intend to move on to =
comment on a proposal for a possible cc SO once such a proposal is =
presented - as explained in the TF terms of reference.

Content of current work
The current draft reflects input from all constituencies that have =
chosen to make input along with the GA. Indeed the GA rep to this TF has =
made a useful and constructive contributions to date and that input is =
reflected through out the report.

Philip Sheppard

- ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C1B85E.5B9347E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I am surprised at the comments of Mr Younger with =
respect to=20
the on-going work of the Structure task force.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>Scope</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The TF agreed to first comment on at-large. We =
intend to move=20
on to comment on a proposal for a possible cc SO once such a proposal is =

presented - as explained in the TF terms of reference.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><STRONG>Content of current =
work</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>The current draft reflects input from all =
constituencies that=20
have chosen to make input along with the GA. Indeed the GA rep to this =
TF has=20
made a useful and constructive contributions to date and that input is =
reflected=20
through out the report.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Philip Sheppard</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C1B85E.5B9347E0--

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 21:58:41 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA position on the Structure TF report

At 16:18 16/02/02 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
>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?

Hello Alexander,

Thank you for posting that text-only version of the TF report.

Yours is a good question that requires more than a little thought.
I am not sure if it will enhance the role of the Individuals in the DNSO, 
or if  such "integration"  will prove a distraction and a dilution.
The original idea for the @large was to look after the wider interest of 
the internet community and not be solely focused on Domain Names.
Now, the ALSC proposal has changed that.
I have always suspected that this was done to deflect the push for 
participation of individuals in the DNSO and fob the Individual DN holders 
off with a largely worthless "Icann membership".

The IP constituency makes it quite clear that they see the @Large as a 
substitute for Individuals in the DNSO.
The TF proposal :
"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. "

could work the way it should, or it could become a mechanism to ensure that 
these NC members will never rock the boat. It all depends on under what 
rules the At-large administrative Council gets formed.
The devil is in the details.

> >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).

I would agree with that. But would you agree with me that of those 
three  only Karl comes close to representing Individual DN holders?

Well, perhaps I am too pessimistic about the @Large organization and the 
influence their directors are going to have on ICANN DN policy.
But you seem to take it for granted that the playing field will never be 
level and that the @Large directors will always be outvoted by business 
interests.
If the @Large playing field remains that tilted, why play there?

The DNSO has slightly more potential to be worth participating in.

- --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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1043
*************************