Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1063
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 3 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1063

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

Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:53:58 -0800
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Public forum for comments?

It is open, and has been since Thursday. See 
http://www.icann.org/announcements/statement-28feb02.htm

The board retreat was over the weekend. I was encouraged to post and 
I did. It takes a few days to get the public comment section going. 
No apologies.

Please comment away. I look forward to them.

Stuart

At 8:21 AM -0500 3/2/02, Joanna Lane wrote:
>Dear Stuart,
>
>Would you please let us know when we can expect the public forum to be
>available for comments on your proposal, after all, it is now nearly a week
>since you told the world you were looking forward to public discussion and
>debate. How can you expect anybody to take you seriously when your actions
>do not follow through?
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: M. Stuart Lynn [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>  Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:50 PM
>>  To: Joanna Lane
>>  Subject: Re: Public forum for comments?
>>
>>
>>  Dear Joanna:
>>
>>  We will be setting one up in the next few days. As I am sure you can
>>  imagine, this has been a rather hectic week.
>>
>>  Stuart
>>
>>
>>  >Dear Stuart,
>>  >
>>  >In your proposal for ICANN reform,
>>  >http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm,
>>  you state: "I
>>  >offer this analysis and these recommendations with the hope of
>>  stimulating
>>  >public discussion and debate. [...] I look forward to your comments and
>>  >suggestions."
>>  >
>>  >Question: Has ICANN set up a forum where the public may comment
>>  on, discuss
>>  >and debate this proposal? It seems odd that there isn't one set
>>  aside in the
>>  >usual place on ICANN's website, don't you think?
>>  >
>>  >http://forum.icann.org/
>>  >
>>  >Regards,
>>  >Joanna
>>
>>
>>  --
>>
>>  __________________
>>  Stuart Lynn
>>  President and CEO
>>  ICANN
>>  4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
>>  Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>>  Tel: 310-823-9358
>>  Fax: 310-823-8649
>>  Email: [email-masked]
>>

- -- 

__________________
Stuart Lynn
President and CEO
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: 310-823-9358
Fax: 310-823-8649
Email: [email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:57:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - please give it a chance!

Alex and all assembly members, stakeholders or interested parties,

  We are giving it a chance Alex.  I also agree that any such effort
should be open to any and all stakeholders/users, as do all
of our [INEGroup] members.

The big problems that have been expressed are more along the
lines of the following:

1.) A steerting committee was "Appointed" by Joop-Pinder
     that does not seem to reflect the will of the thus far
     ICANNATLARGE.COM membership ( i.e. these
     and not elected folks in this Steering Commettee)

2.) A difirenciation of "Type" of membership has been
     effected from the get go which did not meet the
     predominance of the ALSC participants indicating
     that only Domain Name holders are of "Special"
     signifigance.  This is against the MoU and the White
     paper and is therefore disenfrnchising as a result.

3.) There is not Email forum for this effort only Webmail
      which as many know is too easly manipulated.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have now seen several mails about Icannatlarge.com:
>
> -- Some people object to some people becoming members,
> -- some people object to some people in the group
>    which Thomas Roessler ironically called "cabal".
>
> About the first:
> We not only have to be inclusive, we /want/ to be
> inclusive, don't we? I'm *very* happy to have e.g.
> Marilyn Cade, Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts on the
> membership list. That doesn't mean that you have to
> agree with them -- it shows that they take it serious.
> It's exactly what we need for the Accra meeting:
> A list of people which shows that there is serious
> interest in a self-organized At Large.
>
> About the second:
>   | cabal: [Webster dictionary]
>   | the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons
>   | secretly united to bring about an overturn or
>   | usurpation especially in public affairs; also :
>   | a group engaged in such artifices and intrigues
>
> This is exactly what the Icannatlarge.com steering group
> tries to do, except that the group works in the open and
> doesn't want to overturn or usurp. ;) The list is archived
> publicly and *all* the Icannatlarge.com steering group
> tries to do is to help Joop by putting the responsibility
> on more shoulders: The group has e.g. just recommended that
> the membership list (default view) should not differentiate
> between domain holders and non domain holders. (Please give
> Joop some time to implement it! Like most involved in the
> effort, he's just a human being.) In fact, everyone of that
> group agreed.
>
> If you are not happy with any of the features of the
> site, please contribute ideas and/or code! We are **NOT**
> the leaders of the At Large, we are just helping with
> the website.
>
> The bottom line:
> This is our chance to show that At Large /can/ self-organize.
> Let's not waste this chance. The Accra meeting is coming up,
> and we have by now all read the writing on the wall. If we
> don't manage to get it started, there will probably never be
> an ICANN At Large.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 14:33:26 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Public forum for comments?

Stuart and all assembly members,

[email-masked] is a web based forum.  Many times
referred to as a "Black Hole" type forum.  I believe that something
more substantial with an archive should be provided.

  I also am on the ICANN Announce list and did not see
any announcement to notify anyone of this "Black Hole"
type of comment forum for the Reform effort.  Please
advise if an when such an announcement is to be forthcoming.

Thank you in advance for you cooperation.

M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> It is open, and has been since Thursday. See
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/statement-28feb02.htm
>
> The board retreat was over the weekend. I was encouraged to post and
> I did. It takes a few days to get the public comment section going.
> No apologies.
>
> Please comment away. I look forward to them.
>
> Stuart
>
> At 8:21 AM -0500 3/2/02, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >Dear Stuart,
> >
> >Would you please let us know when we can expect the public forum to be
> >available for comments on your proposal, after all, it is now nearly a week
> >since you told the world you were looking forward to public discussion and
> >debate. How can you expect anybody to take you seriously when your actions
> >do not follow through?
> >
> >Regards,
> >Joanna
> >
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: M. Stuart Lynn [mailto:[email-masked]]
> >>  Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:50 PM
> >>  To: Joanna Lane
> >>  Subject: Re: Public forum for comments?
> >>
> >>
> >>  Dear Joanna:
> >>
> >>  We will be setting one up in the next few days. As I am sure you can
> >>  imagine, this has been a rather hectic week.
> >>
> >>  Stuart
> >>
> >>
> >>  >Dear Stuart,
> >>  >
> >>  >In your proposal for ICANN reform,
> >>  >http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm,
> >>  you state: "I
> >>  >offer this analysis and these recommendations with the hope of
> >>  stimulating
> >>  >public discussion and debate. [...] I look forward to your comments and
> >>  >suggestions."
> >>  >
> >>  >Question: Has ICANN set up a forum where the public may comment
> >>  on, discuss
> >>  >and debate this proposal? It seems odd that there isn't one set
> >>  aside in the
> >>  >usual place on ICANN's website, don't you think?
> >>  >
> >>  >http://forum.icann.org/
> >>  >
> >>  >Regards,
> >>  >Joanna
> >>
> >>
> >>  --
> >>
> >>  __________________
> >>  Stuart Lynn
> >>  President and CEO
> >>  ICANN
> >>  4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> >>  Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> >>  Tel: 310-823-9358
> >>  Fax: 310-823-8649
> >>  Email: [email-masked]
> >>
>
> --
>
> __________________
> Stuart Lynn
> President and CEO
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> Tel: 310-823-9358
> Fax: 310-823-8649
> Email: [email-masked]
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 11:30:56 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:22:38 -0800, "William S. Lovell"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>I would heartily concur with this general concept, with one exception.
>Who needs ICANN? Why have a "middle man?" 

Indeed that is now the question.

>All of the ccTLDs
>are perfectly capable, through the NIC, of setting up a global system,
>now hopefully to include .eu, without having the imperial ICANN make
>up a bunch of rules without any global consultation, the ccTLDs don't
>like parts of it and refuse to pay ICANN any money, etc. I'm aware
>that there are contracts, but these die out eventually (one would hope),
>and during that time a truly international authoritative root server could
>be set up, together with all the other paraphenalia.

ICANN Management has effectively just declared war on the ccTLDs
saying they effectively wish to be able to force contracts and levy
binding fees on ccTLDs regardless of whether the ccTLDs agree or not.

Many ccTLDs have given hundreds of thousands to ICANN and the ICANN
process as signs of good will despite receiving almost nothing in
return.  This was with the intention that mutually acceptable
contracts could be negotiated but ICANN refuses to negotiate and
rejects the ccTLD versions out of hand rather than uses them as a
basis for negotiation.

I think it may be time for the ccTLDs to simply stop paying any money
to ICANN when ICANN is going to use that money to try and do them
over.  Probably to also stop turning up to meetings.

ccTLDs do not in my eyes needs a NZ$90 million a year body to do the
job Jon Postel used to do.  ICANN was primarily created due to the
need to create new gTLDs not to form some mini-UN over the ccTLDs.

In terms of the root zone, only three functions are really needed for
the ccTLDs:
1) Updating of root zone details after authentication
2) Notification of minimum technical standards for a TLD
3) A re-delegation procedure where the old manager loses the support
of the local internet community

This could all be done very easily by the ccTLDs acting as a peer
organisation. 

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:02:49 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

David, 

Thanks for this excellent summation!  How true.  A few
questions:  What about "policy" decision making with
respect to domain names (i.e. trademarks vs. domains)? 
Who/what will deal with such matters on the Internet, if
at all?  Will "Intellectual Property" issues be left up to
national jurisdiction(s)?  What about the COM, NET, ORG
domains, what will be their policy scope and
instrument(s)?   Lastly, Will we go back to Postel's
vision of not allowing trademark claims priority or
right(s) over domains on the Internet?

DPF wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:22:38 -0800, "William S. Lovell"
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >I would heartily concur with this general concept, with one exception.
> >Who needs ICANN? Why have a "middle man?"
> 
> Indeed that is now the question.
> 
> >All of the ccTLDs
> >are perfectly capable, through the NIC, of setting up a global system,
> >now hopefully to include .eu, without having the imperial ICANN make
> >up a bunch of rules without any global consultation, the ccTLDs don't
> >like parts of it and refuse to pay ICANN any money, etc. I'm aware
> >that there are contracts, but these die out eventually (one would hope),
> >and during that time a truly international authoritative root server could
> >be set up, together with all the other paraphenalia.
> 
> ICANN Management has effectively just declared war on the ccTLDs
> saying they effectively wish to be able to force contracts and levy
> binding fees on ccTLDs regardless of whether the ccTLDs agree or not.
> 
> Many ccTLDs have given hundreds of thousands to ICANN and the ICANN
> process as signs of good will despite receiving almost nothing in
> return.  This was with the intention that mutually acceptable
> contracts could be negotiated but ICANN refuses to negotiate and
> rejects the ccTLD versions out of hand rather than uses them as a
> basis for negotiation.
> 
> I think it may be time for the ccTLDs to simply stop paying any money
> to ICANN when ICANN is going to use that money to try and do them
> over.  Probably to also stop turning up to meetings.
> 
> ccTLDs do not in my eyes needs a NZ$90 million a year body to do the
> job Jon Postel used to do.  ICANN was primarily created due to the
> need to create new gTLDs not to form some mini-UN over the ccTLDs.
> 
> In terms of the root zone, only three functions are really needed for
> the ccTLDs:
> 1) Updating of root zone details after authentication
> 2) Notification of minimum technical standards for a TLD
> 3) A re-delegation procedure where the old manager loses the support
> of the local internet community
> 
> This could all be done very easily by the ccTLDs acting as a peer
> organisation.
> 
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
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: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:07:00 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Icannatlarge.com - conflict of interest

Saturday, Saturday, March 02, 2002, 8:54:28 AM, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "William S. Lovell" wrote:
>> 
>> Again, and for heaven's sake, how many votes would ex-BoD members have?
>> Just as many as there were ex-BoD members who joined icannatlarge, no more.
>> If the cumulative membership (now passing 100) were unable to avoid electing
>> 
>> an ex-BoD member to office, if that is what it fears, then the organization
>> would
>> probably deserve what it fears to get.  As Abel Wisman says, "it is the vote
>> of
>> the majority that makes a decision not the individual."

> If a proper outreach effort were instituted (i.e.
> incorporating the original AtLarge Membership contact
> lists), I would have no problem with it.  HOWEVER, if what
> we're going to end up with is the silent IP Lawyer crowd
> etc., from the GA which always has a habit of voting for
> the status quo and its reps then I am vehemently opposed.  

Excluding them is not the answer, though.  All that shows is that the
community is unable to self organize.

Inclusive and open cannot be compromised.

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

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 23:15:05 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> On 07:27 02/03/02, DPF said:
> >I am now rapidly approaching the opinion that the ccTLDs should carry
> >on forming their own peer association and then negotiate directly with
> >the US Department of Commerce to take over ICANN's role with regards
> >to any ISO3166-1 entries in the root.
>
> At last :-) But I am afraid this is too late because of ".us" expected size
> and signed agreements with au and jp which will be delaynig. Also the
> differences among the ccTLDs. And basically because the ccTLDs share the
> IANA functions with the gTLDs, the DoC havnig no particular priviledege
> except running its own root server system. IANA (once restored) should
> serve as a source of master root file for every global root server system.

I'll leave the matter of ISO rules to those who know more about them than
I do, but this matter of negotiating with the DofC needs comment. Upon the
entry of private parties into internet administration, the question must be
asked, what authority is left with the DofC?  The ARPAnet was "owned"
by the USG because ARPA had created it, but then when the USG divested
itself of it except through its contracts with NSI, it created only a fish
line  (2 lb
test) of a supervisory capacity.  So far as I can see, the DofC (through the
IANA) has never exercised any control over NSI, nor subsequently over
ICANN (the "new" "Newcorp"). Meanwhile, back at NSI, it was seeking to
claim ownership of the .com, .org and .gov names as such -- a truly arrogant
effort that was properly thwarted. So what's to own? (Even though NSI was
sold to Verisign for $17 billion, gained from "property" belonging to the USG
- -- which is to say, you and me.)

Upon what authority does ICANN act? What lawful control over the Internet,
and both the technical and policy aspects of it, does the USG have? From what
statute and Constitutional provision? Or more properly, since the Internet is
global, from what part of International law? Since we all know that contracts
must be supported by value, what "value" is received by any ccTLD or registrar
by way of a contract with ICANN? To be sure, these entities are "granted,"
by ICANN, the "right" to do this or that. But what if those entities had the
"right" to do "this or that" anyway? What consideration would then have
been received by them so as to support the contracts? To be sure, ICANN
performs services, but what if these entities were to commence carrying out
those functions themselves?

In short, where are the clothes of the ICANN empire? And why is it here?
(It indeed needs to be replaced by something, and preferably an entity formed
through international agreement such as the WTO, WIPO, etc., or perhaps
a public/private entity involving both governments and trade groups, etc, but
please don't call it a "global ICANN" -- we've seen enough of that.)

>
> The only way is to have the ccTLD Managers participaing to their National
> Internet Conference boards (NIC). These NIC will  gather national@large
> [for legtimacy, dynamism and innovation], consumer organizations, ISPs,
> content providers, user association, GAC representative, etc..
>
> The NIC will form an ICANN constituency-orgnization-SO [as you may like]
> and will work at being acknowldged as the ICANN/GA. The ICANN contract will
> then be replaced by a voted global ICANN  NIC Membership equal to all. This
> Membeship will detail the committees/SOs etc.. the different groups of a
> NIC will participate to.

Again, please drop the ICANN nomenclature -- there's too much baggage being
carried along with it.

Bill Lovell

> This is the normal international structure system/ National structures
> gather into a joint international structure of equivalent format. Each with
> its own budget. There is no objection to the RIPE and others to enter into
> an MoU over that, since it is their own structure.
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 23:24:13 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> David,
>
> Thanks for this excellent summation!  How true.  A few
> questions:  What about "policy" decision making with
> respect to domain names (i.e. trademarks vs. domains)?
> Who/what will deal with such matters on the Internet, if
> at all?  Will "Intellectual Property" issues be left up to
> national jurisdiction(s)?

See http://www.cerebalaw.com/domain.htm.

> What about the COM, NET, ORG
> domains, what will be their policy scope and
> instrument(s)?   Lastly, Will we go back to Postel's
> vision of not allowing trademark claims priority or
> right(s) over domains on the Internet?

I would certainly hope so.

Bill Lovell

>
>
>
> DPF wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:22:38 -0800, "William S. Lovell"
> > <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> > >I would heartily concur with this general concept, with one exception.
> > >Who needs ICANN? Why have a "middle man?"
> >
> > Indeed that is now the question.
> >
> > >All of the ccTLDs
> > >are perfectly capable, through the NIC, of setting up a global system,
> > >now hopefully to include .eu, without having the imperial ICANN make
> > >up a bunch of rules without any global consultation, the ccTLDs don't
> > >like parts of it and refuse to pay ICANN any money, etc. I'm aware
> > >that there are contracts, but these die out eventually (one would hope),
> > >and during that time a truly international authoritative root server could
> > >be set up, together with all the other paraphenalia.
> >
> > ICANN Management has effectively just declared war on the ccTLDs
> > saying they effectively wish to be able to force contracts and levy
> > binding fees on ccTLDs regardless of whether the ccTLDs agree or not.
> >
> > Many ccTLDs have given hundreds of thousands to ICANN and the ICANN
> > process as signs of good will despite receiving almost nothing in
> > return.  This was with the intention that mutually acceptable
> > contracts could be negotiated but ICANN refuses to negotiate and
> > rejects the ccTLD versions out of hand rather than uses them as a
> > basis for negotiation.
> >
> > I think it may be time for the ccTLDs to simply stop paying any money
> > to ICANN when ICANN is going to use that money to try and do them
> > over.  Probably to also stop turning up to meetings.
> >
> > ccTLDs do not in my eyes needs a NZ$90 million a year body to do the
> > job Jon Postel used to do.  ICANN was primarily created due to the
> > need to create new gTLDs not to form some mini-UN over the ccTLDs.
> >
> > In terms of the root zone, only three functions are really needed for
> > the ccTLDs:
> > 1) Updating of root zone details after authentication
> > 2) Notification of minimum technical standards for a TLD
> > 3) A re-delegation procedure where the old manager loses the support
> > of the local internet community
> >
> > This could all be done very easily by the ccTLDs acting as a peer
> > organisation.
> >
> > 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-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 03 Mar 2002 00:32:15 -0800
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] whois task force progress

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> I have just posted a revised draft of what may become a report from
> the WHOIS task force, see
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-whois/Arc00/pdf00001.pdf>.
>
> Note that the findings and summary sections are guesstimates of what
> the task force may agree upon, and may still be subject to change.
>
> Comments and corrections are, of course, highly welcome.
>
> While I'm on it, I believe that a public "thank you" to Abel Wisman
> and Kristy McKee is overdue.  You're both doing a great job on this
> task force.  Thank you!

Indeed, that draft is the most thorough, professional piece of work I've
ever seen in the ICANN context.

Bill Lovell

>
>
> --
> 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

- --
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, 03 Mar 2002 21:33:02 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

At 23:15 2/03/02 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:

>In short, where are the clothes of the ICANN empire? And why is it here?
>(It indeed needs to be replaced by something, and preferably an entity formed
>through international agreement such as the WTO, WIPO, etc., or perhaps
>a public/private entity involving both governments and trade groups, etc, but
>please don't call it a "global ICANN" -- we've seen enough of that.)

In such a replacement scenario (WIPO, ITU, govt/"trade groups") you won't 
have *any* say at all in the coming regulational frenzy.
Neither will ccTLD's.

- --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: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 03:15:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

Joop, Bill and all assembly members,

  I am afraid Joop is quite right here.  We have already seen how the
ITU operates.  How WIPO operates and how the WTO operates.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 23:15 2/03/02 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >In short, where are the clothes of the ICANN empire? And why is it here?
> >(It indeed needs to be replaced by something, and preferably an entity formed
> >through international agreement such as the WTO, WIPO, etc., or perhaps
> >a public/private entity involving both governments and trade groups, etc, but
> >please don't call it a "global ICANN" -- we've seen enough of that.)
>
> In such a replacement scenario (WIPO, ITU, govt/"trade groups") you won't
> have *any* say at all in the coming regulational frenzy.
> Neither will ccTLD's.
>
> --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

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: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:50:17 -0500 
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Elisabeth,

Can you provide more detail about this?  I do not know where to find any
information about the $9050.  In fact, I don't think we had even set up the
fundraising effort in 2000 even though the offer was made that year.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 8:30 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

Chuck

I believe that "Other donations" item of 9050 USD in 2000
is a donation for matching funds. I vaguelly recall that Roger
have been mentioning this as such - to be verified however,
it was quite a long time ago.

Cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011231.ICANN-DNSO-finances.html

Elisabeth
- --

> 
> There have been no donations made to date that I am aware of.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:12 PM
> To: 'Jeff Williams'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn
> 
> 
> Jeff:
> 
> 1. The "setting up" only took us a few hours, not a few days!
> The discussion about where, how, and who would manage took a month.
> 
> 2. I did not realiuze that Verisign just announced that they will NOT be
> matching what already has been paid in. Did I miss something somewhere?
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
> Williams
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:04 PM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 
- --
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 #1063
*************************