Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1060
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, March 2 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1060

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

Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 21:49:22 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [fwd] Steering Group for icannatlarge.com. (from: [email-masked])

At 21:59 28/02/02 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>[Note: This is Thomas' stating his personal opinion, and not the chair of 
>the GA speaking in that capacity.]
>
>On 2002-02-28 11:50:07 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
>>   So where did this Steering Group come from?
>
>I suggested it, and Joop accepted it, with minor modifications.  I then 
>set up the mailing list and web archive.
>
>>   Especially since three of its "members" have evidently not 
>> even   registered for membership in ICANN-AT-LARGE!  (Aizu, 
>> Hofmann,   and Wong). Talk about a setup! There are grave 
>> political   mistakes being made here already, which should have been 
>> thought   through.
>
>Most of your criticism is (generally) well-taken, but, at this point of 
>time, besides the point.
>
>Right now, a lot of "minor" "implementation" details on the site can quite 
>well have an influence on what happens. Think about what the options are: 
>Not doing anything is certainly _not_ an option. Following the (good!) 
>process you describe in your posting requires a certain number of members 
>to sign up, which means that some time will go by.
>
>Until then, you have very few choices, when it comes to implementation 
>decisions which may turn out to be crucial (in particular when there is no 
>clear input from the relevant community, yet): Either, the individual in 
>charge of the implementation is going to make lonely decisions. Possibly 
>after having received feed-back behind the scenes, from those he bothers 
>to ask, possibly after having listened to some mailing lists or web 
>forums.  But, ultimately, he's making decisions of his own, and he's the 
>only one in charge of important details.
>
>Or, there is some group of (hopefully) respected individuals who give that 
>feed-back in a publicly visible way, and a commitment of the implementor 
>to follow the advice of that group.
>
>I very much prefer the second option over the first one, which is why I 
>worked to implement it.  (I do, in particular, prefer that second option 
>when we are talking about the single effort which seems to be getting most 
>of the attention.  Because, in this case, the third option (namely, to let 
>the effort fail) would cause considerable harm, and should not be choosen.)
>
>
>           This steering group is a quick stop-gap measure.
>
>
>(OK, maybe we should have called it something else, but I had to think 
>about a quick name for that mailing list.  atlarge-cabal didn't sound 
>right, either.)
>
>
>Please look at it that way, and please work to make it unnecessary by 
>joining the membership, and helping it to gain momentum.  In particular, 
>I'd like to ask you to put your comment about the "statements" policy 
>(which, BTW, was the implementor's decision) into one of the forums.

I agree completely with all Thomas' comments here.
I will seek the consent of the editorial Panel for any website decision 
that may have consequences for the direction of the At Large.
I will seek ratification of the decisions that are already inherent ion the 
current content.
The Forum is flexible and any one of you can create threads on subjects 
that have priority.

A living, serious forum is what we have to show the Board in Accra.

Tell it around on every ML, make every friend sign up two more and quickly 
reach critical mass so that democracy can kick in and you elect your own 
preferred webmaster under rules that you have all agreed on.

Bootstrapping is not democratic, but the structure is open and it's up to 
you all to help create a democratic and transparent one.

- --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: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 21:55:04 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

At 01:05 1/03/02 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:
>The mere suggestion of limitations on membership for an "at-large" group
>are preposterous and what's more, a contradiction in terms.
>
>Everyone should be able to be a member and if the majority of the
>at-large members decide that any certain person, no matter what
>background, colour, religion, sex, job, bank, or whatever discriminable
>part you want to choose, should be in any form part of governing or
>representing that "at-large" group then so be it.
>
>it is called democracy, and no, that is not a means for people who
>have nothing or no other place to be heard.
>Strangely enough that could be another constituency and again (even
>weirder) there could be cross memberships.

I agree with Abel on this. The At Large is the place where Kings and 
commoners stand together. Equally , on a one-woman-one vote basis.
Marilyn is welcome as a member, and she is expected to represent nobody but 
herself, as an individual Domain Name holder.
If she seeks to run for office, she is expected to disclosed her interest 
and current role in the BC. Then it's up to the voters.

- --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: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:57:50 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Forwarded from the Council list:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00214.html

Please note the e-mail below from Versign.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]>; "'DNSO Secretariat'"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: 01 March 2002 14:02

Philip,

Two years ago VeriSign announced that it would match any donations made to
support the work of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization and Names
Council for up to $100,000.  The purpose of this note is to advise you, with
some regret, that the offer is hereby withdrawn.

We have felt for some time that one of the major issues facing the DNSO and
the Names Council is a lack of resources and that increased resources, while
not a solution to all of the DNSO's problems, would go a long way towards
ensuring the competent functioning of the Council and the provision to it of
more and better-researched information.  In particular, we thought that
increased resources would:
* Allow the Council to hire staff to take the lead in
developing and implementing well defined processes and procedures to
facilitate its consensus management role
* Minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the amount
of measurable objective criteria in the consensus-building process
* Provide clearer direction for working groups, committees,
constituencies, etc.
* Make it more readily possible for the NC to perform its role
of managing the consensus-building process in a way that will create
increased confidence throughout the Internet community.

To encourage such donations, we offered to match any donation made by any
company or individual up to a total of $100,000.  Since the offer was first
made in 2000, we have repeated it and a fair amount of work was actually
done by Names Council committees to design a neutral structure to administer
whatever funds were received.

Despite repeated appeals, no commitments for funds were received except from
a couple members of the gTLD Registry Constituency.  This is all the more
disappointing given the fact that quite a few companies who are several
times larger than VeriSign have employees who sit on the Names Council and
participate in most of its committees; and that there are now nearly 100
gTLD registrars, eight gTLD registries, well over a hundred ccTLD operators,
and hundreds of ISP's and re-sellers who purchase and re-sell domain name
registration services.  Many of these are profitable and many are quite
large, so their reason for not donating anything to the DNSO has never been
clear.

Possibly the reason donations were not received is not so much a result of
organizations not being willing or able to make them but rather a result of
the fact that the NC itself never promoted this offer.  It is our opinion
that it is critical to create and implement processes and procedures to
facilitate the NC's consensus management role in an objective manner.  So it
seems unfortunate that the NC has never taken any meaningful action to
establish objective, community-wide consensus management processes.

After trying to help the DNSO through community donations for almost two
years, the time has come to recognize that this approach did not work.

Please forward this communication to the Names Council.

Respectfully,

Chuck Gomes
Vice President, Policy & Compliance
VeriSign Global Registry Services

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

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:53:22 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Structure TF Teleconference

Philip,

The NC has established a body charged with investigating issues pertaining to 
the restructuring of ICANN, the Structure TF.  Our bylaws state:  "Each of 
such bodies shall provide appropriate means, as determined by the NC, for 
input and such participation as is practicable under the circumstances by 
other interested parties."  

David Farrar, our GA representative has forwarded a request, in the interest 
of transparency, to allow for either listen-only ports or a webcasting of the 
upcoming Structure TF teleconference.  You have chosen to deny these options 
for interested parties citing "a cost implication to both", and noting that 
"there is no budget for them in the central DNSO
budget funded by constituencies".

The first proposal for the 2002 DNSO Budget tendered by Roger Cochetti notes 
a "Projected surplus of Funds at Year-End 2001 of $63,000", as well as a 
"Miscellaneous Category" that includes $30,000 for 2002.  There is also $5000 
set aside for telephone expenses.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-budget/Arc00/msg00606.html

Please explain to us exactly why you will not honor the ICANN Bylaws when 
clearly there are funds both available and set aside to cover telephone 
expenses.           

 

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

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:46:53 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

Thanks to Bret Fausett for posting the RIPE NCC's response to the ICANN 
reform proposal document:   
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/icann-reform.html

RIPE's concluding remarks:  "Seeing that you are proposing fundamental 
changes to ICANN and the principles behind the ICANN - RIR MoU, signed in 
1999, we believe that in the interest of our members, we have to thoroughly 
re-assess our relationship with ICANN."
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 14:26:02 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Danny and all assembly members,

  I was wondering when this shoe would drop.  Looks like it has.
Not really much of a surprise.  Next will be the $200m for the
.ORT/.NET divestiture...  Just another notch if the nearly worthless
*Pledges* idea...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Forwarded from the Council list:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00214.html
>
> Please note the e-mail below from Versign.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]>; "'DNSO Secretariat'"
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: 01 March 2002 14:02
>
> Philip,
>
> Two years ago VeriSign announced that it would match any donations made to
> support the work of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization and Names
> Council for up to $100,000.  The purpose of this note is to advise you, with
> some regret, that the offer is hereby withdrawn.
>
> We have felt for some time that one of the major issues facing the DNSO and
> the Names Council is a lack of resources and that increased resources, while
> not a solution to all of the DNSO's problems, would go a long way towards
> ensuring the competent functioning of the Council and the provision to it of
> more and better-researched information.  In particular, we thought that
> increased resources would:
> * Allow the Council to hire staff to take the lead in
> developing and implementing well defined processes and procedures to
> facilitate its consensus management role
> * Minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the amount
> of measurable objective criteria in the consensus-building process
> * Provide clearer direction for working groups, committees,
> constituencies, etc.
> * Make it more readily possible for the NC to perform its role
> of managing the consensus-building process in a way that will create
> increased confidence throughout the Internet community.
>
> To encourage such donations, we offered to match any donation made by any
> company or individual up to a total of $100,000.  Since the offer was first
> made in 2000, we have repeated it and a fair amount of work was actually
> done by Names Council committees to design a neutral structure to administer
> whatever funds were received.
>
> Despite repeated appeals, no commitments for funds were received except from
> a couple members of the gTLD Registry Constituency.  This is all the more
> disappointing given the fact that quite a few companies who are several
> times larger than VeriSign have employees who sit on the Names Council and
> participate in most of its committees; and that there are now nearly 100
> gTLD registrars, eight gTLD registries, well over a hundred ccTLD operators,
> and hundreds of ISP's and re-sellers who purchase and re-sell domain name
> registration services.  Many of these are profitable and many are quite
> large, so their reason for not donating anything to the DNSO has never been
> clear.
>
> Possibly the reason donations were not received is not so much a result of
> organizations not being willing or able to make them but rather a result of
> the fact that the NC itself never promoted this offer.  It is our opinion
> that it is critical to create and implement processes and procedures to
> facilitate the NC's consensus management role in an objective manner.  So it
> seems unfortunate that the NC has never taken any meaningful action to
> establish objective, community-wide consensus management processes.
>
> After trying to help the DNSO through community donations for almost two
> years, the time has come to recognize that this approach did not work.
>
> Please forward this communication to the Names Council.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Chuck Gomes
> Vice President, Policy & Compliance
> VeriSign Global Registry Services
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:34:10 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [fwd] Steering Group for icannatlarge.com. (from:  [email-masked])

Friday, Friday, March 01, 2002, 12:49:22 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> I agree completely with all Thomas' comments here.
> I will seek the consent of the editorial Panel for any website decision 
> that may have consequences for the direction of the At Large.

I think the issue may be that it would help not only engender trust
that this won't turn into another fiasco, but also show the board that
this is a serious effort, if the panel wasn't so very singular in
viewpoint, and instead was more diverse and representative of the
diversity in viewpoints.

- -- 
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: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:38:12 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconf. Minutes - 28 Feb 2002

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

DNSO Names Council Teleconference 28th February 2002 - minutes
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
28 February 2002.

Proposed agenda and related documents
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020228.NCteleconf-agenda.html

List of attendees:

Peter de Blanc         ccTLD
Elisabeth Porteneuve   ccTLD
Oscar Robles Garay     ccTLD

Philip Sheppard        Business (*) proxy for voting purposes given to
M.Cade
Marilyn Cade           Business (*) acting as proxy for Philip Sheppard
Grant Forsyth          Business absent

Greg Ruth              ISPCP
Antonio Harris         ISPCP    acting as proxy for Tony Holmes
Tony Holmes            ISPCP    absent, apologies, proxy to Tony Harris

Philipp Grabensee      Registrars
Ken Stubbs             Registrars
Bruce Tonkin           Registrars

Roger Cochetti         gTLD  acting as proxy for R.Tindall and (**) Cary
Carp
Richard Tindal         gTLD  absent, apologies, proxy given to R.Cochetti
Cary Karp              gTLD  (**) proxy for voting purposes given to
R.Cochetti

Ellen Shankman         IP    absent, apologies, proxy given to J.Scott Evans
                                     or in his absence to Laurence Djolakian
Laurence Djolakian     IP
J. Scott Evans         IP    acting as proxy for Ellen Shankman

Milton Mueller         NCDNH absent, apologies, proxy given to YJ Park
Youn Jung Park         NCDNH acting as proxy for Milton Mueller
Vany Martinez          NCDNH absent

Glen de Saint Géry     NC Secretary
Alix Guillard          MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat

MP3 Recording of the meeting by the Secretariat:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020228.NCteleconf.mp3.

Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00
during the winter in the Northern hemisphere).

Elisabeth Porteneuve chaired this NC teleconference.

Approval of the Agenda

The agenda was approved.

Agenda item 2. AOB.

Elisabeth Porteneuve started the teleconference with this item on the agenda
to give missing Names Council members a chance to join the conference call.

There was general discussion about the President's report "ICANN: The case
for reform" http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24feb02.htm, and
the following points were made:

Joe Simms went to Brussels to meet with the EU Parliament in connection with
Dot EU and had discussed restucturing. with the European Commission
There was agreement that the report clearly identifies tangible problems and
proposes solutions. The area for debate is probably more around the
potential solutions.
That it is the constituencies' duty to respond to the report and
constituencies should be encouraged to find thoughtful, innovative and
realistic solutions.
The entire Names Council should be involved in the process.
Policy development in the Names Council should continue.
Discussion to be continued on the Names Council list, in the constituencies
and during the Ghana meeting.

Agenda item 1. Election of Names Council Chair.

There were two candidates:

Philip Sheppard
Cary Karp
Three possibilities for the vote: any of the two candidates or abstention.

19 Names Council members present or represented by proxies, 2 Names Council
members absent.

The voting results:

19 votes casted: 11 for Philip Sheppard, 8 for Cary Karp, no abstentions.

Distribution of votes:

For Philip Sheppard:

Peter de Blanc (ccTLD), Elisabeth Porteneuve (ccTLD), Oscar Robles Garay
(ccTLD), Philip Sheppard (Business), Marilyn Cade (Business), Greg Ruth
(ISPCP), Antonio Harris (ISPCP), Tony Holmes (ISPCP), Ellen Shankman (IP),
Laurence Djolakian (IP), J. Scott Evans (IP)
For Cary Karp:

Philipp Grabensee (Registrars), Ken Stubbs (Registrars), Bruce Tonkin
(Registrars), Roger Cochetti (gTLD), Richard Tindal (gTLD), Cary Karp
(gTLD), Milton Mueller (NCDNH), Youn Jung Park (NCDNH)
Decision 1: Phillip Sheppard is elected as the NC Chair for the next 6
months.

The Names Council members expressed their gratitude to both excellent
candidates for their participation and their wish to dedicate a lot of time
of work on the ICANN and DNSO matters.

Elisabeth Porteneuve closed the meeting, congratulated Ph. Sheppard and
thanked the members for their participation.

15. 45 end of call.

Next NC meeting , will be held in Accra, Ghana, on Tuesday 12 March at 15:00
UTC see: http://www.icann.org/accra/
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----
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: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:12:54 -0500
From: Rob Courtney <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Statement on Lynn Proposal

The NGO and Academic ICANN Study (NAIS) has issued a statement 
responding to Stuart Lynn's recent paper proposing ICANN 
restructuring. Comments/thoughts are welcome.

r

* * *

Preliminary Statement of
NGO and Academic Internet Study (NAIS)
On Proposal for Restructuring ICANN

We have preliminarily reviewed with interest the proposal offered 
last weekend by ICANN's President Stuart Lynn to fundamentally 
restructure ICANN. Let us share our initial reaction:

The proposal assumes that ICANN's experiment in an inclusive, 
directly represented At Large Membership has failed, and that ICANN's 
structure will not include such a membership in the future.

a) Yet, the Board has abridged its own process to evaluate the merits 
of the report prepared by its own advisory committee on that matter - 
the At Large Study Committee - which only a few days ago recommended 
that ICANN continue to develop an At Large that would elect board 
members. Since the Board is now unlikely to take the action necessary 
to host an election in the next six months, the At-Large Directors' 
terms will expire and the At-Large Membership will be terminated 
without any decision by the community or the Board that such 
termination is justified. We believe that the ALSC report, along with 
our own recommendations regarding its implementation, should be 
openly evaluated before the whole idea of the At Large is abandoned.

b) As we have stated in the past, openness, transparency, 
inclusiveness, and participation are critical elements of a 
legitimate ICANN. However, the Lynn proposal fails to provide 
adequate support to these principles. We continue to believe that end 
users and the public at large must have the ability to participate 
meaningfully  in ICANN, to act as a watchdog on its activities, and 
to hold it accountable for its decisions that affect the public 
interest. In its current form, the Lynn proposal would hamstring the 
community's ability to conduct these important activities.

c) ICANN has typically described itself as "a technical coordination 
body for the Internet".  Re-focusing on ICANN's core mission is at 
the heart of the Lynn proposal, indeed "mission" is mentioned with 
great frequency throughout the document. However, we believe that the 
appropriateness of the Lynn reforms will not be clear without an 
explanation as to what the core mission activities are. We urge Dr. 
Lynn to elaborate on his own conception of ICANN's technical 
coordination mission, to define the activities that constitute that 
mission, and to continue to explore mechanisms to ensure compliance 
with that mission.

Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
[email-masked]
http://www.cdt.org/

  --

Add your voice to the Internet policy debate!
    JOIN THE CDT ACTIVIST NETWORK!
      http://www.cdt.org/join/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:09:11 -0500
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

I do not agree about "worthless pledges".

I was /am on the Names Council, and Budget committee, and went thru the
entire process. The fact is, that at least 6 months have gone by with no
contributions to that fund.

The offer was made in good faith, and a lot of time spent on the
admistrative machinations about how to accept and manage the fund. Was
that time wasted? Who knows. If we had not done everything necessary to
"prepare to accept money", we could not now be at this stage - which is
simply that no one is coming forward with donations to be matched.

I DO expect Verigign will match the donations to date, as small as they
may be.

Peter de Blanc
.VI

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:26 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Danny and all assembly members,

  I was wondering when this shoe would drop.  Looks like it has. Not
really much of a surprise.  Next will be the $200m for the ..ORT/.NET
divestiture...  Just another notch if the nearly worthless
*Pledges* idea...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Forwarded from the Council list: 
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00214.html
>
> Please note the e-mail below from Versign.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]>; "'DNSO Secretariat'" 
> <[email-masked]>
> Sent: 01 March 2002 14:02
>
> Philip,
>
> Two years ago VeriSign announced that it would match any donations 
> made to support the work of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting 
> Organization and Names Council for up to $100,000.  The purpose of 
> this note is to advise you, with some regret, that the offer is hereby

> withdrawn.
>
> We have felt for some time that one of the major issues facing the 
> DNSO and the Names Council is a lack of resources and that increased 
> resources, while not a solution to all of the DNSO's problems, would 
> go a long way towards ensuring the competent functioning of the 
> Council and the provision to it of more and better-researched 
> information.  In particular, we thought that increased resources 
> would:
> * Allow the Council to hire staff to take the lead in
> developing and implementing well defined processes and procedures to
> facilitate its consensus management role
> * Minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the amount
> of measurable objective criteria in the consensus-building process
> * Provide clearer direction for working groups, committees,
> constituencies, etc.
> * Make it more readily possible for the NC to perform its role
> of managing the consensus-building process in a way that will create
> increased confidence throughout the Internet community.
>
> To encourage such donations, we offered to match any donation made by 
> any company or individual up to a total of $100,000.  Since the offer 
> was first made in 2000, we have repeated it and a fair amount of work 
> was actually done by Names Council committees to design a neutral 
> structure to administer whatever funds were received.
>
> Despite repeated appeals, no commitments for funds were received 
> except from a couple members of the gTLD Registry Constituency.  This 
> is all the more disappointing given the fact that quite a few 
> companies who are several times larger than VeriSign have employees 
> who sit on the Names Council and participate in most of its 
> committees; and that there are now nearly 100 gTLD registrars, eight 
> gTLD registries, well over a hundred ccTLD operators, and hundreds of 
> ISP's and re-sellers who purchase and re-sell domain name registration

> services.  Many of these are profitable and many are quite large, so 
> their reason for not donating anything to the DNSO has never been 
> clear.
>
> Possibly the reason donations were not received is not so much a 
> result of organizations not being willing or able to make them but 
> rather a result of the fact that the NC itself never promoted this 
> offer.  It is our opinion that it is critical to create and implement 
> processes and procedures to facilitate the NC's consensus management 
> role in an objective manner.  So it seems unfortunate that the NC has 
> never taken any meaningful action to establish objective, 
> community-wide consensus management processes.
>
> After trying to help the DNSO through community donations for almost 
> two years, the time has come to recognize that this approach did not 
> work.
>
> Please forward this communication to the Names Council.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Chuck Gomes
> Vice President, Policy & Compliance
> VeriSign Global Registry Services
>
> --
> 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

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

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

Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:20:26 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 
> 
> Anyway, why shouldn't a former board member "stand for office" in an
> ALSO?

1) it will appear to the public as if nothing's really
changed, that an AtLarge with ex-BoD members is nothing
more than a token gesture etc.
2) all *former* ICANN BoD members were _appointees_ (i.e.
top down), whereas the AtLarge is about "bottom-up"
representation, so it's a little hard to see any of the
past directors as representative of AtLarge
interests/concerns/issues per se
3) all former BoD members were/are responsible for the
current state of affairs and should not be given another
opportunity to meddle with the AtLarge.

I hope these reasons satisfy.

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:04:20 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Peter and all assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I do not agree about "worthless pledges".

  Of course I am not surprised that you don't agree...

>
>
> I was /am on the Names Council, and Budget committee, and went thru the
> entire process. The fact is, that at least 6 months have gone by with no
> contributions to that fund.

  This is mainly because the GA was not allowed to set up it's
own fund or collect it's own funds that may have contributed
later or at the same time by the NC.   That was a very bad
tactical and strategic error that seem to now be coming home
to roost.

>
>
> The offer was made in good faith, and a lot of time spent on the
> admistrative machinations about how to accept and manage the fund. Was
> that time wasted? Who knows.

  Looks like it was wasted, without a doubt IMHO...

> If we had not done everything necessary to
> "prepare to accept money", we could not now be at this stage - which is
> simply that no one is coming forward with donations to be matched.

  INEGroup uses as part of our funding a matching fund method.
Setting up to receive those funds took all of about two days.

>
>
> I DO expect Verigign will match the donations to date, as small as they
> may be.

  Well they have just announced that they will NOT be...  Again
so much for *Pledges*...

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
> .VI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
> Williams
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:26 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn
>
> Danny and all assembly members,
>
>   I was wondering when this shoe would drop.  Looks like it has. Not
> really much of a surprise.  Next will be the $200m for the ..ORT/.NET
> divestiture...  Just another notch if the nearly worthless
> *Pledges* idea...
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Forwarded from the Council list:
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00214.html
> >
> > Please note the e-mail below from Versign.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "Cochetti, Roger" <[email-masked]>; "'DNSO Secretariat'"
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: 01 March 2002 14:02
> >
> > Philip,
> >
> > Two years ago VeriSign announced that it would match any donations
> > made to support the work of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting
> > Organization and Names Council for up to $100,000.  The purpose of
> > this note is to advise you, with some regret, that the offer is hereby
>
> > withdrawn.
> >
> > We have felt for some time that one of the major issues facing the
> > DNSO and the Names Council is a lack of resources and that increased
> > resources, while not a solution to all of the DNSO's problems, would
> > go a long way towards ensuring the competent functioning of the
> > Council and the provision to it of more and better-researched
> > information.  In particular, we thought that increased resources
> > would:
> > * Allow the Council to hire staff to take the lead in
> > developing and implementing well defined processes and procedures to
> > facilitate its consensus management role
> > * Minimize the amount of subjectivity and increase the amount
> > of measurable objective criteria in the consensus-building process
> > * Provide clearer direction for working groups, committees,
> > constituencies, etc.
> > * Make it more readily possible for the NC to perform its role
> > of managing the consensus-building process in a way that will create
> > increased confidence throughout the Internet community.
> >
> > To encourage such donations, we offered to match any donation made by
> > any company or individual up to a total of $100,000.  Since the offer
> > was first made in 2000, we have repeated it and a fair amount of work
> > was actually done by Names Council committees to design a neutral
> > structure to administer whatever funds were received.
> >
> > Despite repeated appeals, no commitments for funds were received
> > except from a couple members of the gTLD Registry Constituency.  This
> > is all the more disappointing given the fact that quite a few
> > companies who are several times larger than VeriSign have employees
> > who sit on the Names Council and participate in most of its
> > committees; and that there are now nearly 100 gTLD registrars, eight
> > gTLD registries, well over a hundred ccTLD operators, and hundreds of
> > ISP's and re-sellers who purchase and re-sell domain name registration
>
> > services.  Many of these are profitable and many are quite large, so
> > their reason for not donating anything to the DNSO has never been
> > clear.
> >
> > Possibly the reason donations were not received is not so much a
> > result of organizations not being willing or able to make them but
> > rather a result of the fact that the NC itself never promoted this
> > offer.  It is our opinion that it is critical to create and implement
> > processes and procedures to facilitate the NC's consensus management
> > role in an objective manner.  So it seems unfortunate that the NC has
> > never taken any meaningful action to establish objective,
> > community-wide consensus management processes.
> >
> > After trying to help the DNSO through community donations for almost
> > two years, the time has come to recognize that this approach did not
> > work.
> >
> > Please forward this communication to the Names Council.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> > Vice President, Policy & Compliance
> > VeriSign Global Registry Services
> >
> > --
> > 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

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1060
*************************