Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1065
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 5 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1065

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

Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 05:45:38 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg01535.html

On 04:20 04/03/02, William S. Lovell said:
>(Jefsey: pardon my fractured French!)

Non, c'est bon.
I like the KKKs image, not so much for the people - I do not think Esther 
is a ClanWomen - but for the fondamental error in the design Building an 
@large according the ICANN Model, when the ICANN fails due to its 
centralized model will lead to no where.

During an inter-Miltary Academy drill, we seamen just sit after arguing 
with brillant Army guys on the right direction to take: waiting for them to 
come back. We slept a few hours before they discovered we had looked for 
the stars and came back. I feel the same in here.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 13:15:54 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap

At 04:08 04/03/02, William S. Lovell wrote:
>  Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>On 08:15 03/03/02, William S. Lovell said:
>> >Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>> >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.)
>>
>>I am sorry this property does not belong to you and me because of the USG
>>(I am French).
>True, true! Even I have to remind myself now and then that my posts go 'round
>the world, as do those of all of our whole bunch here!  :-)
>>It belongs to you and me because we said so in 1980s when
>>com was decided by Mr. Boutmy's team and net by Mr. Haykens and me.
>So fill us in! That would be a fascinating tale to read.

Told the story too many times. I feel like an old Papyweb. I have been many 
years the de facto naming plan custodian - from 1978 to 1986. Long before 
Mokapetris came with the DNS we were the true "inter nets" with millions of 
supported paying users of public data services round the globe, with 
technical solutions/architecture still to come :-) The names technical 
History will rember will be Lauwrence Roberts and Robert Kahn for ARPA but 
also Louis Pouzin for INRIA, LaRoy Times and Joe Rinde for Tymnet. Robert 
Trehin for the root and the interconects...

And believe me what you propose is underway.... You cannot stop reality. If 
you want to join: you welcome!

I am only sorry Joop fights the Individual Domain Holders so well when he 
wants so much to support them. Nobody's perfect :-) The day he understands 
the way it works he will be a brillant ally!

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 06:49:01 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] DNSo Structure Taskforce Conference Call

The DNSO Structure Taskforce has just completed a 90 minute conference
call.  Official minutes will come out but for now here are some quick
notes:

A face to face meeting of the Taskforce will meet in Accra on Sunday
from around 4.30 - 6.00.  I will not be in Accra but the TF agreed
that either Thomas or Alexander (GA Chairs) would be fine as
substitutes (I will liaise directly to arrange)

It was reported that Stuart Lynn will be attending all constituency
meetings to discuss his proposal.  The TF also keen to meet with him
or Sims or Touton.  I suggest the GA also try to arrange for him to
attend the GA meeting.

It was agreed that the TF would ask the Names Council to agree to the
TF to consider the Lynn proposal as it fits within existing terms of
reference.

Some TF members commented that the Lynn report correctly identified
some of the largest problems or issues facing ICANN but that the
answers may not be structural change let alone the ones Lynn proposes.
Areas seen to be issues are:

- - funding
- - no root server contracts
- - no significant progress with cctlds
- - how at large board members elected

Discussion was held on whether to finalise TF report on ALSC or delay
it to consider Lynn proposal as part of overall mix.  To some degree
depends on whether Board intends to vote on acceptance or otherwise of
ALSC report at Accra.

It was reported that informal contact with the Board indicated a split
on whether to vote on ALSC report or not.  

Most discussion was on process but a quick round of comments was
solicited on reaction to the Lynn proposal.  I reported that the GA to
date had only really had negative posts on the report and in response
to a request for specifics highlighted the inclusion of governments on
the Board and abolishing elections and representation for users as
particular negatives.

The issue of funding of ICANN is a big issue for the gtlds and some
other constituencies.  

In terms of time frames it is hoped to have a draft report for the
Names Council for its mid April meeting.  Was agreed there is a need
to respond within weeks not months.

The Lynn paper has a number of aspects to it.  Most are IMO negative
but some such as abolishing DNSO constituencies in favour of self
organising forums have some appeal.  I will try and distill out a
dozen or so key aspects and work with the GA Chair towards getting a
formal GA position on them (probably through a vote of some sort).

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: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 13:30:38 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] proposal: how to proceed constructively

All assembly members,

The following is from the ALSC forum regarding ICANNATLARGE.COM'S
effort..

Esther and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Esther Dyson wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> FWIW, no one has been *asked* to endorse the ALSC (in the context of this
> sign-up campaign), any more than they have been asked to endorse all of
> Joop's opinions (or all of mine, for that matter!).

  Well the ICANNATLARGE.COM web site does not seem to bare you out
on this statement Esther..  Hence I am wondering how and where you
determined this conclusion...  ????

>
>
> All people are being asked to do is to join *publicly* a growing, inclusive
> group that needs to hang together despite some diversity of opinions so
> that they can work towards a common goal - an At-large Membership that can
> have a voice in and elect directors for ICANN.

  Not exactly Esther.  What people or stakeholders are being ask is to
join
a organization, one ICANNATLARGE.COM, that is not inclusive of
any and all interested parties and violates the MoU and the white
Paper.  Ergo, that only domain name owners/holders have a
significant status within this new organization and that they support
the ALSC Final Report.

> At some point, the ALM will
> have to get more precise about details and then there will need to be
> discussions and compromises and voting, but first the group needs to stick
> together and form itself so that it can resolve such questions internally
> rather than split itself apart over the first disagreements.

  Sticking together to what goal or goals is the question.  An inclusive
organization open to any and all stakeholders/users on an equal basis
where integrity is maintained, or one that is akin to a "Club"?

>
>
> Esther
>
> At 08:08 AM 3/4/2002, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> >All,
> >
> >I think that we CANNOT afford any flame war now. The ALM effort should
> >for the moment be kept as agnostic as possible about any sensible
> >choice. So Joop's opinions are his own and in many ways do not
> >represent the opinion of those who registered on icannatlarge.com
> >(including myself ;-) ) and not even of the current editorial panel
> >(you might check this by reading the archive at
> >http://www.fitug.de/icann-alsg). His opinions, and the fact that he
> >chose to devote some time to actually *do* something for this cause,
> >deserve much respect - but will not necessarily coincide with the
> >positions of the newly born effort.
> >
> >Thus, to dissolve this doubt, I think that the icannatlarge.com should
> >be made more open NOW, by electing a temporary Council before the end
> >of this week, among those who already registered, to substitute the
> >closed panel. The current panel is composed by people who I absolutely
> >like and who are among the best candidates for any At Large panel, but
> >it has to be an elective panel NOW.
> >
> >I think, however, that there should be a provision to conduct an
> >outreach campaign to reach a minimum number of members, and only then
> >approve a final version of the Bylaws. The Bylaws of the ALM should
> >not be approved by just 100 or 200 members. We should approve now a
> >temporary version of the Bylaws, stripped down to the points where
> >consensus is clear, and then work collectively to the final one.
> >
> >In the meantime, the icannatlarge.com site should be managed so to
> >respect anyone's opinions and not to give space to any suspicion of
> >exploitation. Are there people who would like to participate, but not
> >to endorse the ALSC? Let's make that endorsement optional. And so for
> >any other controversial issue.
> >
> >But please, DO NOT PART THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE. Do not start other
> >efforts, other membership rolls, other websites. We can only count on
> >ourselves and we will not go far if we are not united. I will be the
> >first to start another effort if this one fails to be open and
> >democratical. But let's give it a chance.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >
> >P.S. During the weekend, I have started to cooperate with Joop, and I
> >have provided him some PHP code - for the moment, it only allows for a
> >check before registration, but I can provide code for a separate
> >opt-out option for the ALSC clause in any moment, if necessary.
> >--
> >.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
> >Vittorio Bertola     <[email-masked]>    Ph. +39 011 23381220
> >Vitaminic [The Music Evolution] - Vice President for Technology
> >
> >DISCLAIMER, PLEASE NOTE: This communication is intended only for use by the
> >addressee. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
> >Transmission, distribution and/or copy cannot be permitted. Please notify
> >immediately the sender by replying if you are not the intended recipient.
>
> BACK TO THE FRONTIER - this year's PC FORUM with
> Craig Barrett, Rick Belluzzo, Eric Schmidt... and you!
> www.pcforum2002.com/pcforum/speakers.cfm
> March 24 to 26
>
> Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> chairman, EDventure Holdings
> writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> [email-masked]
> 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> New York, NY 10011 USA
> http://www.edventure.com

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:36:01 -0800 (PST)
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] DNSO Matching Funds Withdrawn

On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> 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.

Personally it is my belief that for ICANN, or any of its sub-entities,
such as the DNSO, to accept "gifts" of money from any entity that is
subject to ICANN regulation or contract is a situation that may be readily
construed or mis-construed as an attempt to buy favor and influence the
decisions of ICANN.  Hence, it is my opinion that such donations should be
returned to the donor with a polite but firm "thank you but we are unable
to accept your donation".

(I also believe that ICANN's solicitation of "sponsorships" is equally 
improper.)

		--karl--

- --
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, 05 Mar 2002 00:11:28 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Lawyer says Internet outside U.S. law

"The defense lawyer for a Moscow company accused of
violating U.S. copyright law asked a judge on Monday to
dismiss charges against the company, arguing that the
borderless Internet is outside the jurisdiction of United
States law." 

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-851418.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1065
*************************