Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1067
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 7 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1067

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

Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 04:07:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Lynn Reform Presentation @ APRICOT 2002 Bangkok - Scribe's Notes Available

Rick and all assembly members,

  I think it is pretty clear that Stuart chose his words badly
as referenced, Rick.  Either that or he doesn't know what
he is talking about, but wanted to sound like he did.
I think it flopped, in any event...

Rick Wesson wrote:

> Ben,
>
> Ben could you elaborate on stuarts comment "Would like to provide a
> future-looking talk re "IPv28" and "how to assign an IP address to every
> atom in the universe."
>
> Aparently the number of "atoms in the universe" spans from 10^78 to just
> under 10^81, IPv6 has an address space of 2^128 which is much less than
> 10^78. Where does his refrence come from, or is stuart talking
> about IPv8 ;-)
>
> thanks,
>
> -rick
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2002, Ben Edelman wrote:
>
> > I was asked by staff of APRICOT to prepare scribe's notes for selected
> > plenary keynote sessions of the APRICOT 2002 conference in Bangkok this
> > week.  Among those sessions was a presentation by Stuart Lynn of his
> > thoughts on the need for reform of ICANN and proposed methods of doing so.
> > My sense is that many on this list are interested in his comments on this
> > subject, and it's for that reason that I announce here the availability of
> > these notes.
> >
> > My APRICOT 2002 notes are posted at <http://www.apricot2002.net/scribe/>.
> > Stuart's talk is in file <http://www.apricot2002.net/scribe/030602-1.html>.
> >
> >
> > Ben Edelman
> > Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> > Harvard Law School
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:40:08 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Lynn Reform Presentation @ APRICOT 2002 Bangkok - Scribe's Notes Available

Glad to hear that Stuart stirred the pot to help Michael's positions to be 
better spread.
At last a positive point in Stuart's plan!
One step at a time ...

On 05:07 06/03/02, Ben Edelman said:
>I was asked by staff of APRICOT to prepare scribe's notes for selected
>plenary keynote sessions of the APRICOT 2002 conference in Bangkok this
>week.  Among those sessions was a presentation by Stuart Lynn of his
>thoughts on the need for reform of ICANN and proposed methods of doing so.
>My sense is that many on this list are interested in his comments on this
>subject, and it's for that reason that I announce here the availability of
>these notes.
>
>My APRICOT 2002 notes are posted at <http://www.apricot2002.net/scribe/>.
>Stuart's talk is in file <http://www.apricot2002.net/scribe/030602-1.html>.
>
>
>Ben Edelman
>Berkman Center for Internet & Society
>Harvard Law School
>
>--
>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: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:40:51 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Manipulating the GA's voting rights... a new low

Thomas,

What's your view on the new proposed NC procedures which would deny the GA 
the ability to conduct a vote unless first approved by the NC Chair?

13.1 The DNSO secretariat will typically act as returning officer for an 
e-mail vote. All votes using the DNSO secretariat voting software have 
resource implications. Any vote of the NC or General Assembly (GA) undertaken 
by the DNSO secretariat must be requested by the Names Council chair. The NC 
chair will not ordinarily refuse a request for a vote from the chair of the 
GA for a GA vote, so long as there is no cost implication from overtime or 
other costs above that expected in the annual DNSO secretariat budget.  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00243.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: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 06:18:01 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Structure Taskforce - feedback needed on report

Version 8 of the Structure Taskforce is online at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-str/Arc00/doc00017.doc

I need to signify back to the TF on behalf of the GA any specific
positions on behalf of the GA we would like included in the report and
also a position on the main recommendation that the at large would
also have three seats on the Names Council as a de facto individuals
constituency in return for acting through the DNSO on domain name
policy issues rather than competing with the DNSO in this area.

In terms of specific positions it has been my reading of the GA that
the consensus expressed here has been for:
- - nine instead of six board members
- - no linking of at large eligibility to domain name holdership
- - a low (if any) membership fee
- - a low (if any) threshold/quorum for the at large to be recognised
(approx 1,000 max?)

Please advise if you disagree with the above.

I am at this stage unable to gauge consensus on the main
recommendation and also welcome feedback or even a simple straw poll
yes/no sent directly to me

Do you prefer, in terms of policy advice on domain name issues (does
not effect advise on other issues such as bylaws changes) the at large
members to
a) compete with the DNSO and advise the Board directly, leaving it to
the Board to chose whose advice they go with
b) retaining the DNSO as the main advising body on domain name issues
and having the at large perform the role of an individual
constituencies within the DNSO (3 seats on Names Council but does not
advise Board directly on domain name issues) as well as its other at
large roles

There are pros and cons for each of the options above.  An argument
for (a) is at (sorry am trying to link to post by Danny Younger in
ALSC archives but can not get in - can Danny post a direct link to his
post opposing the at large working through the DNSO on domain name
policy issues) and for (B) at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg04031.html

There is a segment in the report for "minority/constituency views/ and
I would like to be able to post something by Friday if I can get a
clear impression from the GA.  If I can not I will note these is
significant split opinion on the proposal.

Ta

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: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:44:22 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Manipulating the GA's voting rights... a new low

On 17:40 06/03/02, [email-masked] said:
>Thomas,
>What's your view on the new proposed NC procedures which would deny the GA
>the ability to conduct a vote unless first approved by the NC Chair?
>
>13.1 The DNSO secretariat will typically act as returning officer for an
>e-mail vote. All votes using the DNSO secretariat voting software have
>resource implications. Any vote of the NC or General Assembly (GA) undertaken
>by the DNSO secretariat must be requested by the Names Council chair. The NC
>chair will not ordinarily refuse a request for a vote from the chair of the
>GA for a GA vote, so long as there is no cost implication from overtime or
>other costs above that expected in the annual DNSO secretariat budget.
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc09/msg00243.html

This wording does not prevent the GA to vote in using other solutions than 
the DNSO Secretariat. Would the NC and the BoD consider the results of such 
votes? The Secretariat owns the voting list (e-mails). Could we establish a 
polling committee having access to the list and establishing an acceptable 
authentification system? 

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

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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:51:40 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI re: IETF and Universal Whois R&D Effort (fwd)

 From Miriam Sapiro.

- --- begin forwarded text

	For those people attending the March 17-22 Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) in Minneapolis who are interested in the ongoing 
development of
a Universal Whois Service, as required by Appendix W of VeriSign's 
Registry
Agreement with ICANN, there will be a technical discussion of the 
potential
for developing standards related to such a service.  Full details of the
session can be found at:

	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/02mar/crisp.txt

	VeriSign continues to solicit input and feedback from the Internet
community through ongoing formal and informal consultations (e.g., at 
ICANN,
RIPE, NANOG, ARIN, CENTR, APRICOT).  In addition, VeriSign has set up a
website, http://uwho.verisignlabs.com, to enable anyone, anywhere, to
provide input and feedback.

Miriam Sapiro
Director of International Policy

VeriSign, Inc.
1666 K Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington DC 20006
tel:    202-973-6600
fax:   202-466-9103

- --- end forwarded text
- -- 
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[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: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:48:11 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Manipulating the GA's voting rights... a new low

At 18:44 6/03/02 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>l
>
>This wording does not prevent the GA to vote in using other solutions than 
>the DNSO Secretariat. Would the NC and the BoD consider the results of 
>such votes? The Secretariat owns the voting list (e-mails). Could we 
>establish a polling committee having access to the list and establishing 
>an acceptable authentification system?

Somebody would still have to actually run it and it would still have a cost.
TANSTAAFL.

- --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: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:12:47 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce - feedback needed on report

At 06:18 7/03/02 +1300, DPF wrote:

>In terms of specific positions it has been my reading of the GA that
>the consensus expressed here has been for:
>- nine instead of six board members
>- no linking of at large eligibility to domain name holdership
>- a low (if any) membership fee
>- a low (if any) threshold/quorum for the at large to be recognised
>(approx 1,000 max?)

I don't think the GA has expressed anything about numbers, but in view of 
the current rate of signup on www.icannatlarge.com (300 in  7 days ) I 
think 1000 is reasonable.

Therefore : No objections to the above assessment from me.

- --Joop

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

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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:41:59 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Manipulating the GA's voting rights... a new low

Wednesday, Wednesday, March 06, 2002, 12:48:11 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 18:44 6/03/02 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>>>l
>>
>>This wording does not prevent the GA to vote in using other solutions than 
>>the DNSO Secretariat. Would the NC and the BoD consider the results of 
>>such votes? The Secretariat owns the voting list (e-mails). Could we 
>>establish a polling committee having access to the list and establishing 
>>an acceptable authentification system?

> Somebody would still have to actually run it and it would still have a cost.
> TANSTAAFL.

Bullocks.  A properly setup polling system would allow the GA chair to
manage the creation of votes, and allow the existing watchdog
committee to supervise the results without any hassle, and still
provide the same accountability to the GA members that the current
system provides.

As for cost, if commercial hosting were needed, provided the software
continued to be based on open source products and not expensive
proprietary environments that require large per server licensing
fees, the hosting for such a beast would be under $15/mo.  And with
all the resources available here I'm sure getting that donated would
be no problem.  The host cannot manipulate the outcome if the system
is developed along the same lines as the existing system.

- -- 
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: 07 Mar 2002 00:52:56 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Manipulating the GA's voting rights... a new low

hrmph, encore:

I hereby offer: webspace, domain(s), bandwidth, processes etc, in short
all that is needed, to the GA for use of common good.

provision:

request comes from either consensus based document or chairs.

same goes for the atlarge.com and alt atlarge (jeffsey)

regards

abel

On Thu, 2002-03-07 at 00:41, William X Walsh wrote:
> Wednesday, Wednesday, March 06, 2002, 12:48:11 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> > At 18:44 6/03/02 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >>>l
> >>
> >>This wording does not prevent the GA to vote in using other solutions than 
> >>the DNSO Secretariat. Would the NC and the BoD consider the results of 
> >>such votes? The Secretariat owns the voting list (e-mails). Could we 
> >>establish a polling committee having access to the list and establishing 
> >>an acceptable authentification system?
> 
> > Somebody would still have to actually run it and it would still have a cost.
> > TANSTAAFL.
> 
> Bullocks.  A properly setup polling system would allow the GA chair to
> manage the creation of votes, and allow the existing watchdog
> committee to supervise the results without any hassle, and still
> provide the same accountability to the GA members that the current
> system provides.
> 
> As for cost, if commercial hosting were needed, provided the software
> continued to be based on open source products and not expensive
> proprietary environments that require large per server licensing
> fees, the hosting for such a beast would be under $15/mo.  And with
> all the resources available here I'm sure getting that donated would
> be no problem.  The host cannot manipulate the outcome if the system
> is developed along the same lines as the existing system.
> 
> -- 
> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:13:31 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] If ICANN were to collapse...

Who would benefit the most?

My opinion: Verisign.

In Frank Herbert's sci-fi masterpiece "Dune", there is a
line: "He who controls the spice, controls the Universe."
"Spice" being a psychoactive natural organic chemical that
occurs only on one planet in an Imperium of millions of
solar systems.  This substance "spice melange" heightens
consciousness and extends life; it is the most precious
substance in the Universe and it forms the very basis of
interstellar transportation and communication, as well as
Universal economy and commerce, similar to the Gold
Standard. [or Domain Standard?] Yet, the spice involves a
necessary lifelong addiction, and the price is controlled
by the Emperor. COM, NET, ORG are the spice melange in the
Internet Universe, and the single Verisign registry is a
monopoly like that of the Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV over
spice production in Herbert's Known Universe.  We [domain
owners and registrars alike] are at their mercy.  

[the above were just some musings for entertainment
purposes]

:)

- -- 
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 #1067
*************************