Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1086
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, March 18 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1086

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 20:30:32 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Where do you come from?

Tonight I looked in the mirror and saw what I see as an ugly scar,
actually quite small and donated by a knifeman in a poorer section of
Pigalle over twenty years ago.  I am writing so obviously he has a worse
scar.

Knife fights will happen. And some would say who wins is important.  We
are in the middle of a nasty fight for rights over my Internet.

I say that the winner in this case is he who keeps fighting.

Hooray to all of you who continue.

A real hero is one that keeps up the battle to protect his fallen
friends.

Let us move forward with grace and integrity.  Shoulders back and square
and nobility the forefront of our words and deeds.

- --
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, 16 Mar 2002 20:43:17 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Turning point

Well we can go on and squabble over issues every day or we can all
relate to some common, bottom up concepts.  Here are some I think we can
all agree upon.

The Internet is generally a good thing for people.
We can make it better.
Domain Names are usually how people find things on the Internet.
Money is made off the use of Domain Names.
People or Groups that make that money should pay for intelligent
allocations of use of DMs.

Now with that in mind we can deal with reorganization and the WSL.

- --
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: 17 Mar 2002 05:01:43 +0000
From: Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS and HTML

Seeing several request for the WLS documents as posted by (among others)
VGRS and the RC, have i taken the liberty to add those as is (rough!) to
the previous page setup for the GA response to WLS.

All but the last VGRS PDF are there, the last one simply will not be
changed over with a minimum of work, and sorry but I do not have that
much time to spend on it.
Those parties who's opinion is worded in that document can have their
opinion added to the page by simply mailing me.

The link for this all is http://www.it-ken.net/

regards

abel

- -- 
Abel S.H. Wisman

Scottish Provident House 
76-80 College Road
Harrow Middlesex
HA1 1BQ 
UK
+44 20 8424 2422
+44 78 1214 1916

www.able-towers.com
www.url.org
www.grid9.net
www.telesave.net

- --
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, 16 Mar 2002 18:22:40 -0500
From: Esther Dyson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [fwd] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge (from: [email-masked])

My pledge is (was) indeed intended towards something that I think has a 
chance of working (such as this proposal). And  I would indeed welcome its 
consideration by the 550 signed-up members of the New At-Large and anyone 
else willing to discuss it ...and ideally, I hope that a critical mass will 
also support it with funding.

So please forward it as broadly as you wish.  Sorry for leaving anyone out 
in my haste yesterday.  And sorry for mis-identifying Alexander.  (the 
overall concept does not depend on Alexander, though I personally think he 
would be good. I was simply trying to be practical and concrete.)

(THis is why someone needs to managing this fulltime, pulling together 
threads from different people and different lists into something more 
coherent.)

Esther

Re ICANN: Indeed it did fund the ALSC, and we may *think* it should 
continue the funding, but as of now it will not.

At 08:36 PM 3/15/2002, Joanna Lane wrote:
>[Apologies for cross-posting - you started it...:-)]
>
>----- Forwarded message from Esther Dyson <[email-masked]> -----
>
>From: Esther Dyson <[email-masked]>
>Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 05:30:04 -0500
>Subject: [icann-alsg] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge
>
>Substance over Rhetoric:
>
><snip>
>ICANN hires Alexander Svensson to manage At-Large outreach for the next
>year.  This position will be funded (here's the challenge!) by my $10,000
>pledge, matched by institutions such as Harvard's Berkman Center (which
>spent at least that much to send its own team to Ghana to observe the
>recent meeting), Markle, Bertelsmann, and the like, and a variety of
>interested companies who at least in principle have supported the notion of
>an At-large membership.  And perhaps even ICANN can allocate a small sum
>with "energy and enthusiasm."
>
>Dear Esther,
>
>Your pledge of $10,000.00
>http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01908.shtml was made in
>response to Pindar passing round the hat
>http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum_archive/msg01845.shtml.
>
>I'm sure I'm not the only one here thinking that cash pledges were thrown
>into the basket without strings, and that in due course these would be
>allocated by the At Large Membership as they saw fit, as opposed to
>allocation of pledges in kind, where donating Members specified the
>resources and services they were willing to provide. It doesn't seem quite
>right that you impose conditions on your pledge that were not there at the
>time it was made.
>
>There is a wider issue to consider also. In view of the results coming out
>of Accra, the ramifications of which still need time to fully appreciate, it
>may well be that the At Large Membership does indeed agree with you that it
>is necessary to have a fulltime employee, but nevertheless decides to engage
>one person who could pursue a number of representative/ liaison positions,
>of which ICANN would only be one. After all, we are hardly likely to be able
>to afford more than one person, if any at all. Also, there are those who may
>feel that as ICANN has funded Denise Michelle's role, they still have a duty
>to continue to support the At Large at least in that capacity.
>
>Moreover, ICANN's very existence is now questionable and consequently, some
>form of direct contact by the ALM with the DoC may be desirable in order to
>preserve the At Largo's independence from both failures of the existing
>administration, in which it has had no role so far, and any future proposed
>ICANN structure for which there is no consensus support from its membership
>to date. Indeed, it is not impossible that ICANN could be replaced by a
>successor agency in September, so there will be those who do not think it
>prudent to throw all At Large eggs into the ICANN basket. In addition, we
>now have Senator Burns Committee Hearings on the horizon, and it does seem
>sensible to bear in mind that whatever representative spokesperson/ liaison
>officer we seek, ought to have skills to represent the ALM in these highly
>political fora, including before Congressional Committees in the USA.
>
>With the greatest respect to Alexander, this role requires discussion and
>debate, and to be advertised to the widest possible audience to draw the
>best candidates, and it is simply premature to decide who may be the best
>person to fill it. So if I might suggest a more constructive way forward -
>you should lead a forum debate on this matter on Icannatlarge.com, where
>consensus amongst the 550+ members for your suggestion to hire Alexander can
>be documented as well as further expressions of interest/ pledges and
>nominations that may be received in support of your idea. This is what we
>call in Best Practices "A Suggestion" (see forum for detailed definitions),
>nothing more, nothing less, so what we need to do now is establish what the
>Issue is and for me, the issue is about ICANN's refusal to fund any part of
>the At large, and possible conditions attached to your own pledge.
>
>In the meantime, if you would please clarify whether or not your pledge has
>strings attached to it, that would be helpful.
>
>Finally, on a point of Order, Alexander is not Chair of the GA, that is
>Thomas Roessler's role - Alexander is Alternate Chair.
>
>Regards,
>Joanna

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

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 06:44:50 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Discussion draft -- ICANN reorganization 

I have posted comments on the funding aspects of ICANN's problems at 
http://www.icannworld.org/proposal2.htm 

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 09:48:34 -0500
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Discussion draft -- ICANN reorganization 

I note with interest on the web page cited below,
( http://www.icannworld.org/proposal2.htm  ) the proposed  "possible
ccTLD equitable solution" of (ICANN) charging each ccTLD $ 7200, then
notifying their governments if they don't pay up.

This is a disturbing concept. I have personally been involved in
assisting the sub-sahara african ccTLD community to self-organize into a
regional association. There (in Ghana last year- NOT at the recent ICANN
meeting), I learned of "emerging ccTLDs" with less than 500 names
registered, who do NOT charge local residents for domain names, and
who's governments are "somewhat unstable" ( I am trying to be diplomatic
here...)

Those ccTLDs can hardly afford US  $ 7,200. in fact in one of the
countries I am referring to, a special permit is required to convert
local cash to US $.

Perhaps another alternative is to simply get the US Government to fund
ICANN to the level of, say $ 5 million per year, or even $ 10 million as
a "base grant". 

Then whe "green paper" movement can continue to be extended, and the
ICANN staff and management can be secure in their jobs.

I had a conversation with Josh Eliot recently. Many of you remember that
Josh used to "perform the IANA function" prior to ICANN.

Josh is in the private sector now, having gone through a number of
interesting ventures already. 

The interesting part, and germain to this discussion, is that Josh now
works for a company called ULTRA-DNS  (that may not be the exact name).
Anyway, ULTRA-DNS provides DNS as a paid service to large clients,
corporations, web hosting firms, etc. They do this for a fee based on
the number of "DNS inquiries" they get, on a per day or per month (per
"some time interval") basis.

Josh's company gives incredible QoS (Quality of Service) level
guarantees. I believe they have secondary servers deployed at major NAPs
and peering points around the world.

I have asked josh for a price to serve secondary DNS for the ccTLD I
manage, and also for secondary service for "emerging ccTLDs".

The secondary DNS for "emerging ccTLDs" who wished to make use of the
service would be paid for by a private ccTLD development foundation- a
group of individuals and corporations who have pledged funds to be used
for technical development of those ccTLDs who need assistance.

It will be interesting to see what fees Josh's company will charge for
"guaranteed QoS service level agreements. Of course, we cannot compare
that to the ICANN-probvided "root server cluster", which, although it is
presumably part of a possibloe ccTLD contract with ICANN, cannot be
compared because "There is NO QoS service level guarantee" available.

I would imaging though, that the cost would be a LOT LESS than US $
7,200 times 200 ccTLDs, or US $ 1.4 million !!!

Peter de Blanc

I do not have the exact quotation/price yet, but when I do get it

Peter de Blanc
ccTLD AdCom and manager .VI

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 6:45 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Discussion draft -- ICANN reorganization 

I have posted comments on the funding aspects of ICANN's problems at 
http://www.icannworld.org/proposal2.htm 

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 14:02:16 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Peter,

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on ICANN's funding issues.  
I'm sure that you can appreciate that ICANN needs to be run as a business 
that is reasonably assured of a steady cash flow.  In order to return the 
organization to a state of normalcy, is there a funding formula would most 
likely be acceptable to the ccTLD community?

Might you have some thoughts as to the actual cost of the IANA function? 

Clearly, if the USG or some agency of the UN were in a position to offer a 
"base grant", this would go a long way toward resolving the difficulties that 
financially-challenged ccTLD managers face.

I note that Vint Cerf is our liaison to the UN... is he in a position to 
exert some influence in this regard?  Perhaps we can obtain necessary funding 
without the need to actually seats governments on the Board of ICANN.  Maybe 
Vint could comment on this point.

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 14:26:04 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.

The idea is to find the best candidates filling a variety of
criteria - geographic dispersion, board experience, Internet
awareness, fund raising ability, appreciation for the wide 
range of interests and opinions among the Internet's constituents,
etc.

Looking at various funding possibilities including endowments
as adjunct or alternative.

vint

At 02:02 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>I note that Vint Cerf is our liaison to the UN... is he in a position to 
>exert some influence in this regard?  Perhaps we can obtain necessary funding 
>without the need to actually seats governments on the Board of ICANN.  Maybe 
>Vint could comment on this point.

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 14:43:54 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The IANA Function

Dear Ms. Cotton,

In our discussion of ICANN's funding issues, we have become aware of the fact 
that the IANA is designed to operate on a cost-recovery basis:

"After the effective date of this purchase order, the Contractor may 
establish and collect fees from third parties (i.e., other than the United 
States Government) for the functions performed under this purchase order, 
provided the fee levels are approved by the Contracting Officer before going 
into effect, which approval shall not be withheld unreasonably provided the 
fee levels are fair and equitable and provided the aggregate fees charged 
during the term of this purchase order do not exceed the cost of providing 
the requirements of this purchase order."  
http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-21mar01.htm

Accordingly, if fees are to be charged to the ccTLD community based on the 
IANA function, it becomes necessary to know the aggregate total of the IANA 
costs.  Unfortunately, we cannot locate a figure for the IANA function in the 
ICANN budget.  

As you are the administrator of the IANA, perhaps you could tell us how much 
is calculated as the annual cost of the IANA function.  I am certain that we 
could inquire of the Contracting Officer regarding the current fee structure, 
but it is reasonable to assume that such facts are indeed at your fingertips.

Looking forward to your assistance in this matter,

Best regards,
Danny Younger
- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 20:26:32 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?

At 01:07 17/03/02, James Love wrote:
>If ICANN is incapable of protecting domain name holders from abusive 
>practices by Verisign, who should or who has the legal authority to do so?

This is certainly a matter for the DoJ to control. We certainly start being 
fed-up with this unstablity and unsecurity created by VRSN through what is 
most probably disloyal practices. jfc

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 15:53:08 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Discussion draft -- ICANN reorganization 

Rather than have the US government fund ICANN, why not auction off a TLD
annually?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Those ccTLDs can hardly afford US  $ 7,200. in fact in one of the
> countries I am referring to, a special permit is required to convert
> local cash to US $.
> 
> Perhaps another alternative is to simply get the US Government to fund
> ICANN to the level of, say $ 5 million per year, or even $ 10 million as
> a "base grant". 

- --
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 15:58:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, vint cerf wrote:
> the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
> on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
> among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.

Vint --

	This is confusing.  Stuart's document indicates that under his
proposal *other* trustees (sec. I.A.1.b) would be generated by a
Board-selected nominating committee, but it says nothing about a
nominating committee for the government-selected trustees.  On the
contrary, Stuart's document says simply that these trustees should be
"nominated by governments (process to be determined)."  It amplifies that
this selection process "should be left to the governments, although it
could be imagined that these selections could be made either by regional
governmental organizations or, alternatively, by the ICANN Governmental
Advisory Committee."

	Does your statement reflect a newer version of the proposal?

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:04:03 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

> Peter,
> 
> Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on ICANN's funding issues.  
> I'm sure that you can appreciate that ICANN needs to be run as a business 
> that is reasonably assured of a steady cash flow.  In order to return the 
> organization to a state of normalcy, is there a funding formula would most 
> likely be acceptable to the ccTLD community?
 
Many ccTLDs have funded ICANN very generously considering that they have no 
contractural relationship with ICANN - they have been donations made as good 
will.

However ICANN has effectively declared war on the ccTLDs by saying that depsite 
us flatly rejecting without even discussing your proposed contracts we are 
going to try and get your govts (by offering them board seats) to coerce you 
all into signing non negiotable contracts which gives ICANN total power over 
the ccTLD.

Now if that is what Lynn wishes to do well he can try.  But don't expect ccTLDs 
to fund ICANN to try and do them over.  That is just plain stupid.

I am only speaking on my own behalf but let me say that with the ccTLD I belong 
to, I will be voting not to pay ICANN a single cent more because of the Lynn 
proposal.  You do not fund your enemy.  And let me say that in the past I have 
been one of the biggest advocates locally for funding ICANN and working with 
ICANN but the Lynn plan changes ICANN so fundamentally my stance has changed.

DPF

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 16:08:40 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

It reflects the evolution of thinking since jan 24 - the nominations process
was one area that stuart left kind of loose, not knowing what he might hear
from the GAC. I think an IETF-like nominations process might work, with a
gov't slate selected by nom committee and approved (or not) by the gov't
folks.

vint

At 03:58 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, vint cerf wrote:
>> the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
>> on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
>> among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.
>
>Vint --
>
>        This is confusing.  Stuart's document indicates that under his
>proposal *other* trustees (sec. I.A.1.b) would be generated by a
>Board-selected nominating committee, but it says nothing about a
>nominating committee for the government-selected trustees.  On the
>contrary, Stuart's document says simply that these trustees should be
>"nominated by governments (process to be determined)."  It amplifies that
>this selection process "should be left to the governments, although it
>could be imagined that these selections could be made either by regional
>governmental organizations or, alternatively, by the ICANN Governmental
>Advisory Committee."
>
>        Does your statement reflect a newer version of the proposal?
>
>Jon
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>[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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:16:34 -0800 (PST)
From: "Karl Auerbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The IANA Function

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> ..  Unfortunately, we cannot locate a figure for the IANA function in
> the ICANN budget.

Neither can I.  And ICANN's management seems not to have that figure 
either.  It is indicatative of very poor cost accounting practices within 
ICANN.

It is my belief that the IANA contract should be moved from ICANN to 
another body that is completely independent and separate from ICANN.

That would both clarify the cost situation and eliminate what appears to
be a game in which ICANN's personel invisibly shift from ICANN to IANA to
ICANN roles thus obfuscating costs, responsibility, and denying
accountability.

		--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: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:02:15 -0500
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

David,
FWIW, I think you have made absolutely the right decision, but I would not
be so sure that ICANN is willing to grant free reign to governments over
selection of Board members. If Vint Cerf's response on another thread is to
be believed, "The idea is to find the best candidates filling a variety of
criteria - geographic dispersion, board experience, Internet awareness, fund
raising ability, appreciation for the wide range of interests and opinions
among the Internet's constituents, etc." If so, candidates will be selected
from those with experience of large private corporate sector directorships,
with favor being shown for those with $5million p.a. political lobbying
budgets.

If we add to that, Esther Dyson's statement at Accra for an At Large that is
"Issue" based, rather than geographically based, and we factor in the
undeniable problem of giving less than friendly world governments equitable
power with the US and its allies over internet governance, one can very
easily arrive at the conclusion that we are heading for a world run by
Corporations, where Governments do not even exist.

Perhaps now would be a good time to order a copy of "Rollerball" from your
local video store.

Regards,
Joanna

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of David
Farrar
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

> Peter,
>
> Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on ICANN's funding
issues.
> I'm sure that you can appreciate that ICANN needs to be run as a business
> that is reasonably assured of a steady cash flow.  In order to return the
> organization to a state of normalcy, is there a funding formula would most
> likely be acceptable to the ccTLD community?

Many ccTLDs have funded ICANN very generously considering that they have no
contractural relationship with ICANN - they have been donations made as good
will.

However ICANN has effectively declared war on the ccTLDs by saying that
depsite
us flatly rejecting without even discussing your proposed contracts we are
going to try and get your govts (by offering them board seats) to coerce you
all into signing non negiotable contracts which gives ICANN total power over
the ccTLD.

Now if that is what Lynn wishes to do well he can try.  But don't expect
ccTLDs
to fund ICANN to try and do them over.  That is just plain stupid.

I am only speaking on my own behalf but let me say that with the ccTLD I
belong
to, I will be voting not to pay ICANN a single cent more because of the Lynn
proposal.  You do not fund your enemy.  And let me say that in the past I
have
been one of the biggest advocates locally for funding ICANN and working with
ICANN but the Lynn plan changes ICANN so fundamentally my stance has
changed.

DPF

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 16:29:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Vint and all assembly members,

vint cerf wrote:

> the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
> on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
> among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.

  Yes this is how I understand it as well Vint.  And that is a violation
of the MoU with respect to representation of choice by the stakeholders.
Governments have had a very checkered history in their choices
of appointments.  People voting for their choices have historically
in most democratic countries usually elect the best person for
the job...

>
>
> The idea is to find the best candidates filling a variety of
> criteria - geographic dispersion, board experience, Internet
> awareness, fund raising ability, appreciation for the wide
> range of interests and opinions among the Internet's constituents,
> etc.

  Yes and it is a wonderful thought, but it is half baked Vint.
"The Internet is for everyone", remember Vint?  >;)  For
instance Vint, how do you adequately measure "Internet Awareness",
or even "Board experience"?  Why would "Board Experience"
be a filter?

>
>
> Looking at various funding possibilities including endowments
> as adjunct or alternative.

 Ah yes, well endowments of any serious size would very likely
overly influence the makeup of the decision makers.  Not a good
thing here Vint...

>
>
> vint
>
> At 02:02 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
> >I note that Vint Cerf is our liaison to the UN... is he in a position to
> >exert some influence in this regard?  Perhaps we can obtain necessary funding
> >without the need to actually seats governments on the Board of ICANN.  Maybe
> >Vint could comment on this point.
>
> --
> 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, 17 Mar 2002 23:50:27 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

At 20:26 17/03/02, vint cerf wrote:
>the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
>on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
>among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.
>
>The idea is to find the best candidates filling a variety of
>criteria - geographic dispersion, board experience, Internet
>awareness, fund raising ability, appreciation for the wide
>range of interests and opinions among the Internet's constituents,
>etc.

tst, tst... Let just think about what it relly represent.

Some 20 candidates or so have been selected by BoD retired Members 
entrusted some seats at Lynn's selection committee, where may be Karl will 
have been added for the Media and Katho as he is appreciated from everyone.

These candidates are supposed to represent every area of the globe in 
proportion of 300.000.000 people each, to be a former member of the BoD of 
something large such as IBM, ATT, MS, SAIC, BT, Bank of America, the Fed or 
may be the Red Cross or the Vatican, to be a former IETF Member and to know 
how to write an open root DNS file, to have a lot of friends fool enough to 
donate big money for no return in order to manage a system where others 
make millions, to have published a book or two on the complexity of the 
Internet social impact on the current world.

Why not? We could find a former Primer Minister from Sweden. We could find 
a Cardinal php developer or an SAIC Admiral out of the Interconnected 
Flying Saucer business. Let suppose that every of them have been cleared by 
the CIA. Let accept that none has been refused by any government because of 
his nationality, his past positions, his education, etc...

Now how the French, Icelandic, Portuguese, Greek, Estonian, Russian, San 
Marinese, Sloven, English, ... Chinese, Japanese, Malaysian, East-Timorian, 
Tuvaluan, Australia, Afghani, Indian,  ... etc.. etc.. Ambassadors will:

1) know they are good or not
2) practically agree - will that be one country one vote or 1.000.000 
Internet users a vote, or $ 100.000 a vote?

Will the candidates tour the world meeting each Govs. Will there be a ICANN 
Candidate Show? Will that be on TV with an e-vote?

Don't you think that selecting every three years 6 @large directors will be 
as much complex and costly as choosing every 12 years an UN General Secretary?

>Looking at various funding possibilities including endowments as adjunct 
>or alternative.

Why not just a cost based upon the rendered services - if any - with a 
cross subsidization among the TLDs charging their users and the ones not 
charging them? When will we see the ICANN rates?

jfc

- --
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, 17 Mar 2002 19:35:53 -0500
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Vint, I would suggest a much different model for the governments.   Giving
(some) governments a direct role in choosing (some) of the directors will
blur issues such as the legal authority of the entity and its accountability
to the public, and raises a number of concerns over the future of freedom on
the Interent, in a world where repressive governments have a claim for
representation.  What are you going to tell China?  You can't serve?   If
the issue is funding for ICANN, then it may be more appropriate to think
about a multinational contract model.  Right now there is a contract with
one government, the USA.  Perhaps if other governments want to fund ICANN,
and want to participate more directly, they could negotiate a joint
contract.   With a contract model there can at least be some clarity with
respect to the limits of ICANN's authority and mission.   Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jonathan Weinberg" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

> It reflects the evolution of thinking since jan 24 - the nominations
process
> was one area that stuart left kind of loose, not knowing what he might
hear
> from the GAC. I think an IETF-like nominations process might work, with a
> gov't slate selected by nom committee and approved (or not) by the gov't
> folks.
>
> vint
>
> At 03:58 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, vint cerf wrote:
> >> the proposal that stuart made would not put government employees
> >> on the board but would offer governments an opportunity to choose
> >> among a slate of candidates developed by a nominating committee.
> >
> >Vint --
> >
> >        This is confusing.  Stuart's document indicates that under his
> >proposal *other* trustees (sec. I.A.1.b) would be generated by a
> >Board-selected nominating committee, but it says nothing about a
> >nominating committee for the government-selected trustees.  On the
> >contrary, Stuart's document says simply that these trustees should be
> >"nominated by governments (process to be determined)."  It amplifies that
> >this selection process "should be left to the governments, although it
> >could be imagined that these selections could be made either by regional
> >governmental organizations or, alternatively, by the ICANN Governmental
> >Advisory Committee."
> >
> >        Does your statement reflect a newer version of the proposal?
> >
> >Jon
> >
> >
> >Jonathan Weinberg
> >[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
>
>

- --
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 #1086
*************************