Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1052
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, February 27 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1052

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 13:44:18 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Unresponsive registrars

Rick and all assembly members,

Rick H Wesson wrote:

> Danny,
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Excerpt from:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/25/technology/ebusiness/25NECO.html
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > Responses were due by Feb. 1, but Chris J. Katopis, counsel to the
> > subcommittee, said that as of last week many registrars had not replied. "If
> > they're not going to respond to a government inquiry," he said, "what are
> > they going to do to respond to an aggrieved individual when something
> > happens?"
>
> We responded and sent a lengthly letter discussing how dificult it is to
> identify invalid addresses. There is no known method of verifying a snail
> mail address in over 100 countries.

  What you state here is not the problem at all.  Identifying a person
too a E-Mail address IS the problem.  This of course can be addressed
and technology exists to effect this.

>
>
> Registrars must rely on notification of an registration to investigate
> until there is a mechanism to validate addresses and phone numbers world
> wide. Its a bit orwellan to even wish for something like that to exist.

  Why does a registrant have to have a phone #?

>
>
> We told this to Katopis and other staffers from the committe; If the
> choose to ignore facts it won't change the reality of the problem of
> verification of registrant data.

  Well the problem is that the actual facts and those being stated as
facts differ greatly..  Hence the confusion...

>
>
> -rick
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:14:54 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Unresponsive registrars

Tuesday, Tuesday, February 26, 2002, 10:04:52 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Rick,

> At issue is why many US registrars failed to provide a response to a House 
> Judiciary Subcommittee inquiry.  This is more troubling than the current 
> technological limitations on authentication.  

Probably because they recognized the inquiry itself was just plain
stupid.  The question is an obvious one.

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

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:41:40 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  Unresponsive registrars

Tuesday, Tuesday, February 26, 2002, 12:14:54 PM, William X Walsh wrote:

> Tuesday, Tuesday, February 26, 2002, 10:04:52 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

>> Dear Rick,

>> At issue is why many US registrars failed to provide a response to a House 
>> Judiciary Subcommittee inquiry.  This is more troubling than the current 
>> technological limitations on authentication.  

> Probably because they recognized the inquiry itself was just plain
> stupid.  The question is an obvious one.

Also, the registrars are private entities, who are bound by no
agreement with the government.  They really have no obligation to
respond to such queries.

- -- 
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:16:43 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA summary 2002-08

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related) 
discussions and news during the 8th (and the beginning of the 9th) 
week of 2002.  GA list archives are available online at 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/maillist.html>.  Please 
feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be appropriate.

				Votes

The nomination period for the Names Council chair was ongoing.  The 
gTLD registry constituency has nominated Cary Karp.  Philip Sheppard 
of the Business Constituency, the current chair, is available for a 
second term.

				Topics

(i) Deleted domain handling; supplemental information on domain name 
redemption.  ICANN published a supplemental paper which detailed the 
proposal in various points: Registrar processes remain mostly 
unchanged, registries should be allowed to take a "cost-recovery 
service charge", and registrants should be able to choose the 
renewing registrar. 
<http://www.icann.org/registrars/redemption-supplement-20feb02.htm>

Genie Livingstone was not the only one to mention domain harding as 
a problem which should be addressed first.  However, Genie produced 
a sample of 100 4-letter domains being in "on hold" status, 
beginning with the letter "A", in order to understand what currently 
happens.  The result was that a particularly large number of the 
domains investigated is held by Verisign Registrar, with 
Register.com following on the second place. 
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01089.html>, 
<http://www.eyeondomain.com/__aadomains-tabulated.htm>.

Harold Whiting followed up to notice that "as of a few days ago, NSI 
registrar was backlogged with over 1.3 million names that are 
overdue for deletion." He suggests a Uniform Registrars' Deletion 
Policy which should be mandatory for registrars.  He suggests that, 
upon expiration, a domain should immediately be put "on hold", and 
become unusable for a (uniform, I suppose) period not less than 40 
days.  After that period, domains should be returned to the registry 
and become available for re-registration.  However, "registry shall 
queue all names marked for deletion using the standard '5 day hold' 
process used now."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01094.html>

William Walsh replied that this proposal would tie up some of 
registrars' capital for a 45 day period, which would hurt smaller 
registrars. While the same is the case with the current grace 
period, that one is optional, while Harold's proposal would make it 
mandatory.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01095.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01097.html>.

Abel Wisman pointed out that a possible solution to this problem may 
be to charge renewal fees to the registrar on the 45th day of 
expiry, unless a domain is returned to the registry.  Fees would 
then be non-returnable.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01098.html>

(ii) Structure.  After the board's retreat over the week-end, a 
restructuring proposal done by ICANN's Lynn was posted.  According 
to this proposal, the current board of directors would be replaced 
by a (smaller) board of trustees.  Some trustees would be appointed 
by governments (one trustee per geographical region), some would 
represent so-called policy councils (replacing the current 
supporting organizations, and being lead by "steering groups" which 
would replace the current councils), and some would be co-opted by 
the board. In particular, there would be no more "at large" 
elections.

Constituencies would be replaced by "forums", and would not 
automatically send representatives to the steering groups.

The board of trustees would be expected to make policy decisions by 
itself, as opposed to the current board's mission (as far as theory 
is concerned).

See <http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm> 
for details, and <http://www.icannchannel.de/lynn-proposal.pdf> for 
a nice chart of the suggested structure done by Alexander Svensson.

Alexander also provided some preliminary comments, noting, in 
particular, that "the Board seems to elect itself according to this 
proposal." He also asks how non-commercial and individual users make 
sure their voice is heard: Assuming that they have indeed 
representatives in the steering groups (the proposal reserves seats 
for non-commercials and individuals in the steering group of the 
generic TLD names policy council), they would have to convince the 
remainder of the steering group, which could then write a 
recommendation for the board. The board, in turn, could ignore such 
recommendations.  Alexander concludes that, "to have an influence on 
the ICANN process, having a seat on the board and/or the new 
nominating committee seem to be good places."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01127.html>

(iii) Registrar data accuracy.  Danny younger forwarded an excerpt
from a New York Times article on registrar data accuracy.  In the
article, the counsel of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts,
the Internet and Intellectual Property claims that many registrars
did not reply to a message from the committee which requested
information "about whether and how the companies verify customer
data."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01138.html>

Rick Wesson replied that "we" (we being Alice's Registry) "responded
and sent a lengthy letter discussing how difficult it is to identify
invalid addresses.  There is no known method of verifying a snail
mail address in over 100 countries."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01139.html>

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/

- --
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:34:17 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC Accra meeting agenda 12 March 2002

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

ICANN/DNSO

DNSO Names Council Accra, Ghana Meeting on 12 March 2002 - Agenda
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
26 February 2002.

This agenda was established according to the Rules of Procedure for the DNSO
Names Council http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010711.NCprocedures-v4.0.html

Date, time, phone numbers

The Names Council Accra, Ghana meeting will be held on 12 March 2002 at the
following time:

(7:00 LA, 10:00 New York, 15:00 Accra, 16:00 Paris, 00:00 Japan/Korea, 02:00
(next day) Melbourne)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Local time between November and end March, WINTER in the NORTHERN
hemisphere
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         14:00
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Auckland, New Zealand                      UTC+12+1DST 04:OO Wednesday
    Jerusalem, Israel                          UTC+2+ODST  17:00
    California, USA                            UTC-8+0DST   8:00
    Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+0DST   9:00
    Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+0DST   9:00
    Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+0DST  10:00
    St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST  11:00
    Santiago, Chile                            UTC-3+0DST  11:00
    Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  12:00
    London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+0DST  15:00
    Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+0DST  16:00
    Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+0DST  16:00
    Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+0DST  16:00
    Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+0DST  16:00
    Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  24:00
    Tokyo,Japan                                UTC+9+0DST  24:00
    Melbourne, Australia                       UTC+10+1DST 02:00 Wednesday
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    The DST ends/starts on last Sunday of March (with some exceptions)
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

The Conference telebridge will be through WorldCom Conferencing

PASSCODE: TBD
LEADER: TBD

The full participants are the 21 NC members as listed in
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html
DNSO Secretariat, ICANN Officers: Louis Touton, Theresa Swinehart

The secretary, Glen de St. Gery, will take notes

The conference MPEG3 recording will be provided by Philippe Renaut

Agenda and related documents

Chair to be decided

Running time for meeting -180 mins.
15.00 to 18.00 Accra time which is UTC
Allocated time - 180 mins.

1. Adoption of Agenda/ patch-in for remote participants - 5 mins

2. Approval of summary of last meeting - 5 mins
Summary of teleconference 14, February 2002
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020214.NCteleconf-minutes.html

3. Wait List and Deletes - feedback from GA session - next steps - (Marilyn
Cade) - 30 mins.

4.  ICANN CEO re structuring proposal - (Philip Sheppard) - 50 mins.
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24feb02.htm

5. At-Large and the TF Structure interim report - discussion prior to public
comment period - (Philip Sheppard) -30 mins.
http://www.atlargestudy.org/decision.shtml
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/msg00072.html

6. Draft report on dot Info and reserved country names - (Philip Sheppard) -
30 mins.
http://www.icann.org/accra/icng-topic.htm

7. Interim report - WHOIS Task Force - (Marilyn Cade) - 5 mins.

8. Status report - UDRP Task Force - (Laurence Djolakian) - 5 mins.

9. Status report - IDN Task Force - (Elisabeth Porteneuve) - 5 mins
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-idn/Arc00/msg00063.html (IDN TF archives)
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/International-Domain-Names-EP.pdf
http://www.icann.org/committees/idn/idn-keyword-statement.htm

10. Status report - ICANN TLD evaluation group - (YJ Park) - 5 mins.

11.  Status report Transfers Task Force - (Marilyn Cade) - 5 mins.

12.  Discussion high-layer issues - (Philip Sheppard) - 5 mins.

13.  AOB

Next NCteleconference will be held on Thursday 18 April 2002, at 15:00 CET,
14:00 UTC see information http://www.dnso.org/meetings.html
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----Information from:
 © DNSO Names Council

- --
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 14:37:58 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Minutes of Registrars' Recent Meeting

Hello,

Their latest minutes have been posted at:

http://www.icann-registrars.org/secretary.htm

It was interesting seeing the lack of support for WLS. I wonder what's
up at Verisign, as they've been fairly quiet of late. They've not even
posted the HTML version of their documents, yet. One can only hope that
they've seen the light and have abandoned the proposal. I'm not sure a
a DNSO GA response is even necessary, since if VRSN is prepared to
ignore the registrars wishes, they'll ignore everyone else too (a short
memo against it, assuming that is the consensus, might be sufficient).

What was particularly humourous in the minutes was the vote held about
having increased Registrar representation on ICANN. Here's a shocker:

"Straw poll favoured increased Board representation for registrars 22
for, nil against"

They do have a good point, based on their contribution to revenues.
Although, by the same logic, corporations should be electing
representatives to governments, as they pay corporate income tax. I'd
be surprised to see any group argue that they have too much influence,
and vote to reduce their own power/representation...

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:37:18 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Few preliminary comments on Lynn proposal

> 
> At http://www.icannchannel.de/lynn-proposal.pdf (43 kB)
> I have a chart showing the new ICANN Board structure
> (again: I'm not sure if everything is correct and
> would appreciate feedback!). 
> 

Thanks Alexander.

The photo's report from ICANN Board retreat in Washington DC
by Andy Mueller-Maguhn:
http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/
 ... with diagrams drafted during that meeting:
http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/013.jpg
http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/017.jpg
http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/019.jpg
http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/020.jpg
http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/021.jpg
http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/023.jpg
http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/026.jpg

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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:00:15 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA summary 2002-08

On 2002-02-26 13:53:47 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

>I oppose by what is said and what is left unsaid.

>This is not nor will it ever be under TR more than his propaganda 
>machine.

You are entirely free to produce summaries of your own which contain 
what you believe to be relevant and omit what you consider 
irrelevant.  All the material you need is there: You are subscribed 
to the list, and there's a web archive from which you can get 
information, and to which you can link.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:55:08 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Unresponsive registrars

At 10:39 26/02/02 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:

>I wonder if there's been any discussion of appointing an Ombudsperson
>to be able to mediate those kinds of disputes? Although, it would
>require registrars to give up a little power, it might improve matters.

This is an idea that we are exploring in NZ as well. In order to make an 
Ombudsman effective, it has to be done on a national jurisdictional level, 
supported by legislation.

- --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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:43:16 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA summary 2002-08

Tuesday, Tuesday, February 26, 2002, 3:00:15 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-02-26 13:53:47 -0800, Eric Dierker wrote:

>>I oppose by what is said and what is left unsaid.

>>This is not nor will it ever be under TR more than his propaganda 
>>machine.

> You are entirely free to produce summaries of your own which contain 
> what you believe to be relevant and omit what you consider 
> irrelevant.  All the material you need is there: You are subscribed 
> to the list, and there's a web archive from which you can get 
> information, and to which you can link.

Ignore him.

He posts only to the ga-full list to avoid consequences for his posts,
and if he wants his posts taken into account on the summary, he can
post them to the GA list itself in my opinion.

- -- 
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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 15:52:21 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Unresponsive registrars

Hello,

- --- Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]> wrote:
> This is an idea that we are exploring in NZ as well. In order to make
> an 
> Ombudsman effective, it has to be done on a national jurisdictional
> level, 
> supported by legislation.

I'm not sure that the Ombudsman *needs* to be supported by legislation
- -- I suspect it depends on the importance a registrar puts on its
reputation, and whether there can be any sanctions imposed by its peers
(i.e. via a self-regulating body). 

For instance, here in Canada the Canadian Bankers Association has an
ombudsman, as do each of the major chartered banks. See:

http://www.cba.ca/eng/contacts_ombuds.cfm

As far as I know, it wasn't mandated by the federal government, but was
an industry solution to the perceived problem of poor service. They
produce regular reports on the cases that go through the ombudsman.
Conceivably, this model can be adapted by others. See:

http://www.bankingombudsman.com/

For instance, quoting from the FAQs:

"Are the banks required to follow the Ombudsman's recommendations?

Neither you nor the banks are bound by the Ombudsman's recommendations.
However, the mandate of the Canadian Banking Ombudsman provides the
power to influence the banks to follow its recommendations. To date,
all of the Ombudsman's recommendations have been implemented. 

The Ombudsman is required to report publicly the name of any bank which
does not comply with a recommendation. The Ombudsman must also report
publicly the number of complaints brought to the Office against each
bank, the results of its involvement and the time taken to resolve
complaints. This information is released to the media and distributed
to interested individuals, associations, and governments."

Sincerely,

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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:49:54 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Few preliminary comments on Lynn proposal

Thank you Elisabeth,
The last photo of Andy speaks a lot: it shows that Transparency will boil 
down to two public Board meetings a year at the semi-annual public 
meetings. So they save on meeting costs ... and on transparency.
http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/027.jpg

On 23:37 26/02/02, Elisabeth Porteneuve said:
>by Andy Mueller-Maguhn:
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/
>  ... with diagrams drafted during that meeting:
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/013.jpg
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/017.jpg
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/019.jpg
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/020.jpg
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/021.jpg
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/023.jpg
>http://www.ccc.de/~andy/ICANN/Reports/2002/20020223/026.jpg
>
>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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:45:29 -0800 (PST)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Minutes of Registrars' Recent Meeting

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, George Kirikos wrote:

> What was particularly humourous in the minutes was the vote held about
> having increased Registrar representation on ICANN. Here's a shocker:
> 
> "Straw poll favoured increased Board representation for registrars 22
> for, nil against"
> 
> They do have a good point, based on their contribution to revenues.
> Although, by the same logic, corporations should be electing
> representatives to governments, as they pay corporate income tax. I'd

Yes it is interesting isn't it? That while the rightful authority for the
policy creation for a TLD rests solely in the hands of the TLD Holder,
those who ride such coattails (registrars) would seek to direct the policy
decisions of the TLD Holder.

Not that the Registrars shouldn't seek such authority or speak their mind,
but the symbiotic relationship between the two is of the type
commensulism - not mutualism.

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.Jointtech.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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:03:11 -0800 (PST)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] CHANCELLOR HITLER DISOLVES PARLIAMENT.... THE FINAL SOLUTION HAS COMMENCED

Wow! Can you believe that guy? Is Cap'n Stu(bing) really going to repeat
that bit of History?

Naw... first you have to convince people to do what you tell them :)

Well in case anyone here on this list hasn't already read it, you need to
take a deep breath and pop a motrin cause the truth hurts:

http://www.icannworld.org/

It's also featured on the home page of the Top_Level Domain Association,
Incorpated's website too at:

Http://www.TLDA.net

heh. I just had to laugh. Y'know, the death of ICANN isn't really funny
when you think about it, but humor goes a long way toward healing the
wounds of utter and complete failure (Like ICANN). I just can't help but
flash back to the kid who doesn't like it that he's losing at the game he
brought to the table....

And so he violently explodes into a fury and proceeds to shred that which
he will no longer share.

Can you see it? Parker Brother's ICANN game, shredded, twisted, broken and
scattered all over mom's dining room floor :)

Hey Cap'n Stu(bing), Your my pal - really :) ICANN needs more people like
you (or, let's just get on with it and admit you ran it into the ground).

- --

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.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: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:15:44 -0800 (PST)
From: PacificRoot Hostmaster <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Unresponsive registrars

On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 10:39 26/02/02 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:
> 
> 
> >I wonder if there's been any discussion of appointing an Ombudsperson
> >to be able to mediate those kinds of disputes? Although, it would
> >require registrars to give up a little power, it might improve matters.
> 
> This is an idea that we are exploring in NZ as well. In order to make an 
> Ombudsman effective, it has to be done on a national jurisdictional level, 
> supported by legislation.
> 

hm.... let's see now.... 

the registrar is beholden to the registry, while the registry is beholden
to the TLD Holder to engage in a manner consistent with the TLD Holder's
interests - otherwise, the TLD Holder assigns someone else to make the
money and fires the registry.

Yes... That is the correct analogy.

Oopsie! You mean ICANN's got it all wrong? 

You mean ICANN thinks it is their place to dictate to the TLD Holders and
empower the Registries and registrars to determine the TLD Holder's
policies?

No wonder ICANN died.

> 
> --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
> 

Bradley D. Thornton
Chief Technology Officer
The PacificRoot/Joint Technologies Ltd.
http://www.PacificRoot.com
http://www.JointTech.com

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:32:17 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Unresponsive registrars

At 15:52 26/02/02 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:
>Hello,
>
>--- Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > This is an idea that we are exploring in NZ as well. In order to make
> > an
> > Ombudsman effective, it has to be done on a national jurisdictional
> > level,
> > supported by legislation.
>
>I'm not sure that the Ombudsman *needs* to be supported by legislation
>-- I suspect it depends on the importance a registrar puts on its
>reputation, and whether there can be any sanctions imposed by its peers
>(i.e. via a self-regulating body).

I appreciate that for Banks, but..
Lots of cowboys in this registration business. Unlike with the Banks, who 
have to comply with all sorts of regulation in order to be in business, 
this field has many who shouldn't be in business at all.

The Ombudsman needs the legislative whip.

- --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: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:45:18 -0600
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] dns-o.org

.

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:11:39 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] <spam domain removed>

Intentionally trying to push the limits, Mr Palmer?

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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 03:19:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] On the censorship front - "Peekabooty" software aims to circumvent Net-censorship

All assembly members,

 New product about to be made available to help circumvent
censorship.  Seehttp://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991948
Got to love the product name "Peekabooty"!  >;)
Also see:  http://www.peek-a-booty.org/  for additional information.

Seems, despite the product name (Catchy I think!  >;)  ) that this
product
can have some future uses regarding ICANN...

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 23:54:25 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Is this all just a cunning plan?

I may be overly cynical and may have spent too many years in politics
but few other people have suggested this so I might as well.

My impression of the Lynn plan is that it may in fact be merely a red
herring.  It is one of the oldest political tricks in the world to
propose something so extreme and controversial that when you finally
withdraw it the masses are so happy they didn't get Proposal A they
don't complain so much about Proposal B.

Lets face it up until a few days ago the debate was mainly on 6 vs 9
at large board spots and the size of the fee.  Now the debate has been
shifted to should there be any at large at all and I will not be
surprised if in six months we learn "Okay you do get to have an at
large with six members" - you should be grateful for small mercies.

It will be fascinating to observe what happens to the original 4 board
members who terms expire this year when no replacements can probably
now be elected on in time.

In another post I plan to examine the pros and cons of the Lynn
proposal in detail but for now I am sceptical that it is a plan
proposed with any real intent to have it succeed.

One of the main reasons I am thinking this is because effectively the
Lynn proposal would make ICANN a variant of a UN quango.  Getting
governments to agree on this sort of thing (and I mean actual Govts
not the minor bureaucrats who often attend GAC) is something which
takes years not months.  The proposal would beyond any doubt attract
massive congressional scrutiny, almost universal opposition from media
and NGOs let alone individuals so unless Lynn is very very naive I
suspect he knows the proposal is not a realistic option.  Hence I
suspect it is an attempt to move the debate parameters.

Am I the only one this suspicious?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1052
*************************