Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1070
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, March 9 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1070

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:40:07 -0800 (PST)
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> It is truely amazing that something once  done by volunteers,

In fact much is *still* done by volunteers, such as the running of the
root servers and thus isn't even on the current ICANN budget.

ICANN management likes to inflate the complexity of what it is doing - 
Stuart Lynn, for example brewed up an utterly fanciful statement that it 
would cost ICANN $10,000,000/year to run 12 root servers.  By my own 
estimates, estimates that I doubled just to be on the safe side, I came up 
with about $3,000,000 in one-time costs and the same in yearly recurring 
costs.

(I was appalled at the finacial naivete of ICANN's management insofar as
they were unable even to come up with the costs that ICANN/IANA incurrs
today to operate its root server and they didn't even break the projected
costs down into the basic one-time vs recurring structure.)

The competing root systems manage to do the same job for less than a
couple of percentage points of Lynn's estimates.  And I can assure you,
being a user of competing roots, that the quality of service and failure
rate they deliver is no worse than that of the ICANN root and, in fact,
has been better.

When the competition can deliver an apparently equivalent product (in this 
case DNS root services, including root zone preparation and distribution) 
for pennies on the dollar there are clearly some hard questions that need 
to be clearly asked and clearly answered.

ICANN mangement's self-written job description is reminiscent of a resume
from someone who is trying to depict a job flipping burgers as some sort
of high-powered management position.

ICANN's management is obviously engaged in a game of empire building.

> ... Frankly, I do not see the need to pay so much for so
> little. Like there is not even a QoS guarantee on the operation of the
> root server system. 

I agree.  Christian Huitma noted a couple of years ago that many DNS
queries are lost due to server congestion.  And that, in turn, translates
to significant delays for users.

Most of us depend upon the quality and speed of DNS name resolution
services - if name resolution slows down then the whole perception of net
speed goes down as well.

For those of us who build businesses on the Internet, it is hard to make
quality committments to our customers when one of the primary ingreedients
of that service, root name services, is not only outside of our direct
control but is, in fact, run by a bunch of volunteers.

It was only a couple of weeks ago when ICANN's management brought to the 
board a Memorandum of Understanding - not a contract but a MoU - that 
retained nearly all the elements of the volunteer aspect of root server 
operations.  ICANN's management strongly advocated and fought for this 
loose and vague structure.

And now, when it comes to justifying ICANN, suddenly ICANN's management 
does a flip-flop and decides that it now must take a firm grasp of the 
root servers - something that three weeks ago was anathema to them - at an 
outrageous cost of $10,000,000 year.

(I personally believe that ICANN ought to either directly run its root
servers or have firm, clearly enforceable operations contracts.  But the
dollar figure quoted by ICANN management, dollars which largely translate
into head count and bigger org charts, are vastly out of line with any
reality except that of an empire building bureaucrat or a fee grasping law
firm.)

		--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: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 15:41:33 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

Kent and all assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 05:40:25PM +0100, Per Koelle wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 06:32:38AM -0500, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > > > It is truely amazing that something once  done by volunteers, like
> > > > building and co-ordinating the operation of the global Internet prior
> > > > to, say 1995 or 1996,
> > >
> > > 1) In 95/96 there was a paid IANA staff, though it is true that a lot
> > > of work was done by people who were paid under rather non-specific
> > > contracts.
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > >
> > > > What is even MORE amazing is that the US $ 5 million  is just the tip of
> > > > the iceberg.
> > >
> > > No, it is not amazing at all.  If anything, given the demands made on
> > > ICANN, it is amazingly *cheap*.  As an end user, this is working out to
> > > around $.20/domain name per year (3% of the dominant wholesale cost) to
> > > pay for the global coordination functions that ICANN provides.
> >
> > Dear Kent,
> >
> > This is rubbish (and you af all should know),
>
> No, it is not rubbish.
>
> > As far as TLD's is concerned, ICANN/IANA is (only) managing a database with
> > +250 entries !!!!
>
> That is an egregious oversimplification.  The root zone is not just any
> old database, ICANN/IANA is providing management for a database that the
> entire world is using, and that the whole world cares a lot about.  That
> is a *vastly* more complicated thing than "only managing a database".

  From a technical standpoint is is not different Kent.  You know that,
and as much as admitted it in your comment above.  Per is right,
you know he is.  It is true what you say above that perhaps
root zone database is possible more important than mos others,
with possible the exception of Edgar.  But that does not detract
nor should it effect the COST and technical aspects of managing
it...  You also know this very well...

>
>
> > I (for one) run a similar thing with +370.000 entries for around USD 3 mil.!
>
> If all *you* were doing was managing a database with 370,000 entries,
> then $ 3Mil is *way* too much.  A database with 370000 entries is really
> fairly small as databases go -- I personally could manage a database
> like that for a very *very* tiny fraction of $3mil.
>
> The reason it costs you $3mil to run your database has almost nothing to
> do with the size of your database -- the cost is caused almost entirely
> by other factors.  Similarly, the costs to ICANN/IANA for running the
> root zone have essentially nothing to do with the size of root zone.

  Size plays a part in the costs of running any database.  But only
a very tiny part..  Loss of the use or access of the data by so
many as with the Root zone, or edgar for instance is where
the costs come into play.  The bigger the database, the more
important and careful one must be in it's maintenance as
well a backup and recovery.

>
>
> Regards
>
> Kent
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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, 8 Mar 2002 16:51:34 -0500
From: Rob Courtney <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Accra At-Large Meeting Announcement

Members of the GA,

There will be a meeting for any and all people and organizations 
interested in the future of the At-Large this Sunday in Accra. I hope 
anyone on this list who will be present will join us!

Meeting announcement follows.

r

* * *

Creating an "At-Large" Organization
4:00 PM, Sunday, March 10

A roundtable discussion open to all interested parties. Featuring
members of the

* ALSC - the At-Large Study Committee
* NAIS - the NGO and Academic ICANN Study
* Other interested AL participants

We will be meeting to discuss bottom-up efforts at promoting
development of an At-Large organization in ICANN and to consider
future activities. Anyone desiring to see a robust At-Large in ICANN
should attend, and come prepared to participate!

The meeting will begin at 4:00 PM on Sunday, March 10, in the Obuasi
Suite of the Labadi Beach Hotel, next door to the conference venue.

(Space for this meeting shared by the NGO and Academic ICANN Study.)

- -- 

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, 8 Mar 2002 18:54:07 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Structure Taskforce feedback

David,

The Structure TF recommendation that "no policy recommendations would come 
from the ALSO separately" is a minority view expressed only by the IPC that 
has not been endorsed by any other constituent group.  It should not be 
accorded status as a majority view.  The views of the gTLDs and the NCDNHC 
are being categorized as minority views when in fact there have been no 
posted "majority views" in opposition to their statements. 

The At-Large was promised nine seats on the Board.  The TF proposal would 
effectively neuter the At-Large and allow it for policy purposes a mere 3 
seats in a 24 member Council where the interests of users would routinely be 
outvoted by commercial interests.  This is a recipe for disaster and should 
not be supported by the GA.

The TF document treats the At-Large as if it was a "Supporting Organization". 
 I cannot concur with this view in that an SO is no more than an internal 
working committee in a Corporation that has no members.  The At-Large was 
never intended to be an SO, instead it was intended to be a membership 
organization with all the rights and privileges that are accorded to members 
within a corporation.  Membership promotes accountability.  The ICANN Board 
should be accountable to its members.

An SO approach is no more than an artifice designed to limit the risk of 
derivative member lawsuits.  The TF recommendations should not support an 
approach which denies true membership to the At-Large.  

The recommendation that the Board should gauge whether the "ALSO" is in fact 
ready to operate as an ICANN supporting organization based on the DNSO 
criteria for establishing new DNSO constituencies is pure BS and should be 
eliminated.  

In general terms, there has not been sufficient dialogue within this TF to 
tender any recommendations at all.  The TF has not seriously examined the 
ccSO proposal or the GA proposal or the Lynn proposal.  No interim report 
should be tendered because no conclusions can be substantiated.  No 
constituencies have voted or commented on this report, and there has been no 
required public comment period.  To submit a report without the benefit of 
public comments would be a bad precedent to set.

I share the view of Raul Echeberria who wrote:  "Finally, I'd like to state 
that the level of participation in the TF until now has been absolutely 
insufficient to produce an official report."

- --
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, 8 Mar 2002 20:50:05 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Reform proposal

New.net responds to the Lynn "roadmap": http://www.new.net/WhitePaper_v2.pdf
Cover letter sent to DoC below:

March 8, 2002

The Honorable Donald L. Evans
Secretary
United States Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230

        Re:     ICANN Reform

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We reviewed with great interest the report recently issued by the CEO of the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that describes
ICANN's significant shortcomings historically and proposes dramatic reforms
that effectively would turn ICANN into an international regulatory body with
substantially more duties, governmental funding and expansive authority.
While we agree with the report's dim assessment of ICANN's success to-date,
we believe that the proposed reforms, if implemented, would be very bad for
the domain name industry, users of the Internet generally and the overall
interests of the United States.  Moreover, we think that the proposed
reforms are predicated on a utopian vision of world government that is
entirely inconsistent with the views of the current Administration that tend
to favor localized and market-based approaches over centralized regulation.

As the Department of Commerce considers what position it will take with
respect to such reforms, we offer a substitute proposal for reforming
governance of Internet domain names and addresses set forth in the attached
paper entitled "A Proposal for More Realistic Domain Name Governance."  Our
proposal contemplates:

.   Limit ICANN Role to Consensus-Based Trade Association

New.net proposes that ICANN continue to do much of what it currently does
well in its capacity as a trade association for parties interested in issues
related to domain names, IP addresses and Internet protocols instead of
trying to become a powerful, global quasi-governmental regulator.   As a
trade association, ICANN would be able to continue serving its educational
and advisory functions, but with no pretense of authority over U.S. or
international Internet infrastructure assets.

.   Greater Reliance on Market Forces Instead of Regulation

New.net proposes that market forces should be the dominant factor in
regulating the conduct of persons buying, selling and using Internet-related
products and services.  New.net believes that the market, and not
centralized regulation, is the most efficient means to drive persons and
companies to innovate and introduce new products and services using the
Domain Name System (DNS), and regulate their conduct, much in the same
manner that market forces drive innovation and regulate conduct in virtually
every other industry.

.   Local vs. Global Regulatory Decision Making

New.net proposes that where formal governmental regulation is needed to
supplement industry practices and market forces, such regulation already
occurs at the national or local level in the same way that existing laws
regulate most businesses.  Prior to the advent of ICANN, few bodies had
sought to be international regulators without the establishment of treaties,
and formation of a special private or governmental global regulator of
Internet naming and addressing matters simply is not needed.

.   Continued Control of Legacy DNS Root by U.S. Government

New.net proposes that the U.S. Government continue to maintain control over
the legacy DNS root and not ever cede control to an organization with ICANN'
s characteristics.  By maintaining control over the legacy DNS root, the
United States would be assured that its national interests are protected,
and the legacy DNS root likely would continue to be the most widely used
root.

.   Recognize Country Code Operators' Unique Issues in Relation to the Legacy
DNS Root

New.net proposes that country code top-level domain (ccTLD) operators form a
new organization to represent their interests vis-a-vis ICANN, the U.S.
Government and other entities involved in Internet addressing matters.
New.net believes that any reform of the current process for managing the DNS
needs to acknowledge the legitimacy of the interests of non-U.S. country
code top-level domain operators and must do a better job of addressing their
concerns.

Overall, we think that our proposal much more realistically balances the
divergent interests of the numerous parties affected by domain name and
addressing governance issues.  Our proposal would protect vital U.S.
interests in the domain name system, streamline the coordination of
international domain name issues, and support private sector innovation and
flexibility in this sector.  Moreover, this proposal is more consistent with
the original goals of the "White Paper" that led to the creation of ICANN of
truly privatizing management of the DNS, involving international interests
and promoting competition, increased consumer choice and continued
innovation.  Ours is not a perfect solution, but one that is significantly
better than perpetuating a regulatory regime under ICANN that has proven
unworkable or exacerbating ICANN's poor track record by giving it more
power, money and scope.

If you or any other Department of Commerce officials would like to discuss
any of these or other issues with us, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

David Hernand
CEO, New.net, Inc.

cc: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation, Hon. Nancy J. Victory
- --
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, 8 Mar 2002 21:07:49 -0500
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

Kent, I agree with Per Koelle- 

Again, I speak of ccTLDs, not gTLDs, ICANN-approved registrars, and
other "by contract" situations.

There are only about 244 ccTLDs possible, according to iso3166, and we
know that many of those are not operational.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Per
Koelle
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:40 AM
To: Kent Crispin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 06:32:38AM -0500, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > It is truely amazing that something once  done by volunteers, like 
> > building and co-ordinating the operation of the global Internet 
> > prior to, say 1995 or 1996,
>
> 1) In 95/96 there was a paid IANA staff, though it is true that a lot 
> of work was done by people who were paid under rather non-specific 
> contracts.
[SNIP]

>
> > What is even MORE amazing is that the US $ 5 million  is just the 
> > tip of the iceberg.
>
> No, it is not amazing at all.  If anything, given the demands made on 
> ICANN, it is amazingly *cheap*.  As an end user, this is working out 
> to around $.20/domain name per year (3% of the dominant wholesale 
> cost) to pay for the global coordination functions that ICANN 
> provides.

Dear Kent,

This is rubbish (and you af all should know),

As far as TLD's is concerned, ICANN/IANA is (only) managing a database
with
+250 entries !!!!
I (for one) run a similar thing with +370.000 entries for around USD 3
mil.!

Regards
Per Kølle
..DK

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --

- --
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, 8 Mar 2002 21:49:15 -0500
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

Thank you Karl, for the validation.

For those of you on this list who's native language is not english, and
who may not be familiar with the north american idioms of speech, my
choice of words might have been better.

I know that much, if not all, of the key technical work in the Internet
is done by volunteers. Yes, it is true that some of those volunteers
have their salatries paid for by large multinational corporations who
benefit from Internet expansion, such as Cisco, 3com, etc.

The IETF work, the protocol work, and even most of the people who come
to ICANN meetings to try the "great experiment" do so "pro bono" that
is, unpaid outside of their normal commercial jobs. 

My comments were meant to emphasise that, US 10 million dollars or not-
those volunteers and that work will still be volunteer. 

IETF members will not get "new money" for working on standards. Protocol
developers will not participate in the US 10 million, 

In other words, all the things that happened in the pre-ICANN days will
still go on as before. 

What we WILL get is a better-funded bureaucracy, with job and contract
guarantees for more people working at ICANN, and more lawyers getting
legal fees. This does not insure or assure any better or different level
of Internet activity.

I am not saying that this new, well funded bureaucracy is a "bad thing".
It is just a new layer.

As for root server services- there are a number of commercial firms
providing robust DNS for web hosting companies, registrars, large ISPs
like SPRINT, and even major multinational corporations like Microsoft,
who chose to outsource this function by contract with known costs and
quality of service guarantees.

Most of those commercial DNS companies do NOT use BIND, for security and
other reasons.

It would be a "good thing" for us to get some proposals from some of
those commercial firms just to gauge the cost level of a 99.999 or
greater quality of service guarantee.

I am not saying officially, wearing ANY of my professional hats and
titles, that US $ 10 million is "too much". As a businessman, I would
seek several quotes.

Personally speaking though- I bet we could get the job done for less
than US $ 5 million, maybe even US 2.5 million.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Karl
Auerbach
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 4:40 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'Alexander Svensson'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> It is truely amazing that something once  done by volunteers,

In fact much is *still* done by volunteers, such as the running of the
root servers and thus isn't even on the current ICANN budget.

ICANN management likes to inflate the complexity of what it is doing - 
Stuart Lynn, for example brewed up an utterly fanciful statement that it

would cost ICANN $10,000,000/year to run 12 root servers.  By my own 
estimates, estimates that I doubled just to be on the safe side, I came
up 
with about $3,000,000 in one-time costs and the same in yearly recurring

costs.

(I was appalled at the finacial naivete of ICANN's management insofar as
they were unable even to come up with the costs that ICANN/IANA incurrs
today to operate its root server and they didn't even break the
projected costs down into the basic one-time vs recurring structure.)

The competing root systems manage to do the same job for less than a
couple of percentage points of Lynn's estimates.  And I can assure you,
being a user of competing roots, that the quality of service and failure
rate they deliver is no worse than that of the ICANN root and, in fact,
has been better.

When the competition can deliver an apparently equivalent product (in
this 
case DNS root services, including root zone preparation and
distribution) 
for pennies on the dollar there are clearly some hard questions that
need 
to be clearly asked and clearly answered.

ICANN mangement's self-written job description is reminiscent of a
resume from someone who is trying to depict a job flipping burgers as
some sort of high-powered management position.

ICANN's management is obviously engaged in a game of empire building.

> ... Frankly, I do not see the need to pay so much for so little. Like 
> there is not even a QoS guarantee on the operation of the root server 
> system.

I agree.  Christian Huitma noted a couple of years ago that many DNS
queries are lost due to server congestion.  And that, in turn,
translates to significant delays for users.

Most of us depend upon the quality and speed of DNS name resolution
services - if name resolution slows down then the whole perception of
net speed goes down as well.

For those of us who build businesses on the Internet, it is hard to make
quality committments to our customers when one of the primary
ingreedients of that service, root name services, is not only outside of
our direct control but is, in fact, run by a bunch of volunteers.

It was only a couple of weeks ago when ICANN's management brought to the

board a Memorandum of Understanding - not a contract but a MoU - that 
retained nearly all the elements of the volunteer aspect of root server 
operations.  ICANN's management strongly advocated and fought for this 
loose and vague structure.

And now, when it comes to justifying ICANN, suddenly ICANN's management 
does a flip-flop and decides that it now must take a firm grasp of the 
root servers - something that three weeks ago was anathema to them - at
an 
outrageous cost of $10,000,000 year.

(I personally believe that ICANN ought to either directly run its root
servers or have firm, clearly enforceable operations contracts.  But the
dollar figure quoted by ICANN management, dollars which largely
translate into head count and bigger org charts, are vastly out of line
with any reality except that of an empire building bureaucrat or a fee
grasping law
firm.)

		--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

- --
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, 8 Mar 2002 18:53:33 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

Friday, Friday, March 08, 2002, 8:57:37 AM, Kristy McKee wrote:

> Kent, your comments above seem unreasonable and incorrect to me.  In fact 
> there were more Internet Service Providers and nearly the same amount of 
> TLDs in 1995 as there are today...

Only if you define Internet Service Provider as "Internet Access
Provider" and you also fail to take into account that those utilizing
the internet, and the resources available and in use on the internet,
have grown at an exponential level in the 7 years since 1995.

- -- 
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, 09 Mar 2002 11:27:56 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

At 08:19 8/03/02 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>No, it is not amazing at all.  If anything, given the demands made on
>ICANN, it is amazingly *cheap*.  As an end user, this is working out to
>around $.20/domain name per year (3% of the dominant wholesale cost) to
>pay for the global coordination functions that ICANN provides.

Kent, if the ICANN balloon is now so demand driven (and I grant you that to 
an extent. The demands of the IP lobby were quite discernible) is it not 
high time that the noticeable demand for At Large representation is acted 
upon as well?

And talking a bout *really amazingly cheap* , what about $3500 for laying 
out the framework for an on-line self-organization? www.icannatlarge.com

- --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, 08 Mar 2002 22:13:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

Peter and all assembly members,

  Perhaps some have already forgotten.  Kent has recently
been hired by ICANN in a technical capacity.  This would
tend to be a motivation for him to "Pull the ICANN staff
Line" so to speak.  This of course is not a change for
Kent, as he has been a long time supporter (Brown nose?)
when it comes to the ICANN staff and most of the
BoD members for quite some time.  Only now of course
it is official.  >;)

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Kent, I agree with Per Koelle-
>
> Again, I speak of ccTLDs, not gTLDs, ICANN-approved registrars, and
> other "by contract" situations.
>
> There are only about 244 ccTLDs possible, according to iso3166, and we
> know that many of those are not operational.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Per
> Koelle
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:40 AM
> To: Kent Crispin
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement
>
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 06:32:38AM -0500, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > > It is truely amazing that something once  done by volunteers, like
> > > building and co-ordinating the operation of the global Internet
> > > prior to, say 1995 or 1996,
> >
> > 1) In 95/96 there was a paid IANA staff, though it is true that a lot
> > of work was done by people who were paid under rather non-specific
> > contracts.
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > > What is even MORE amazing is that the US $ 5 million  is just the
> > > tip of the iceberg.
> >
> > No, it is not amazing at all.  If anything, given the demands made on
> > ICANN, it is amazingly *cheap*.  As an end user, this is working out
> > to around $.20/domain name per year (3% of the dominant wholesale
> > cost) to pay for the global coordination functions that ICANN
> > provides.
>
> Dear Kent,
>
> This is rubbish (and you af all should know),
>
> As far as TLD's is concerned, ICANN/IANA is (only) managing a database
> with
> +250 entries !!!!
> I (for one) run a similar thing with +370.000 entries for around USD 3
> mil.!
>
> Regards
> Per Kølle
> ..DK
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
>
> --
> 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: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 20:34:21 -0800
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

Friday, Friday, March 08, 2002, 2:27:56 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> And talking a bout *really amazingly cheap* , what about $3500 for laying 
> out the framework for an on-line self-organization? www.icannatlarge.com

If only that was what was going on there.

- -- 
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, 9 Mar 2002 01:04:29 -0500
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

Right- I forgot that Kent changed jobs recently. Must be "old-timer's"
syndrome.

Peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jeff
Williams
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 1:14 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'Per Koelle'; 'Kent Crispin'; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement

Peter and all assembly members,

  Perhaps some have already forgotten.  Kent has recently
been hired by ICANN in a technical capacity.  This would
tend to be a motivation for him to "Pull the ICANN staff
Line" so to speak.  This of course is not a change for
Kent, as he has been a long time supporter (Brown nose?)
when it comes to the ICANN staff and most of the
BoD members for quite some time.  Only now of course
it is official.  >;)

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Kent, I agree with Per Koelle-
>
> Again, I speak of ccTLDs, not gTLDs, ICANN-approved registrars, and 
> other "by contract" situations.
>
> There are only about 244 ccTLDs possible, according to iso3166, and we

> know that many of those are not operational.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Per 
> Koelle
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:40 AM
> To: Kent Crispin
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: Staff Draft towards Mission Statement
>
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 06:32:38AM -0500, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> > > It is truely amazing that something once  done by volunteers, like

> > > building and co-ordinating the operation of the global Internet 
> > > prior to, say 1995 or 1996,
> >
> > 1) In 95/96 there was a paid IANA staff, though it is true that a 
> > lot of work was done by people who were paid under rather 
> > non-specific contracts.
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > > What is even MORE amazing is that the US $ 5 million  is just the 
> > > tip of the iceberg.
> >
> > No, it is not amazing at all.  If anything, given the demands made 
> > on ICANN, it is amazingly *cheap*.  As an end user, this is working 
> > out to around $.20/domain name per year (3% of the dominant 
> > wholesale
> > cost) to pay for the global coordination functions that ICANN
> > provides.
>
> Dear Kent,
>
> This is rubbish (and you af all should know),
>
> As far as TLD's is concerned, ICANN/IANA is (only) managing a database

> with
> +250 entries !!!!
> I (for one) run a similar thing with +370.000 entries for around USD 3

> mil.!
>
> Regards
> Per Kølle
> ..DK
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
>
> --
> 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

- --
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 #1070
*************************