Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1089
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, March 18 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1089

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:23:38 +0200
From: "Charles Shaban" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] posting limits

Rules rather than censorship is needed, maybe if we think 5 is not
enough we need to negotiate to change it but there should be rules.
Personally I started just deleting a lot of the GA email messages
because they are just too much for me to read, since I have my work
to attend too, which caused me that some really important things I
missed, if we keep the discussion right to the point and say what we
want in the shortest way we can it will be better for a lot of the
members I am sure since most of you do have other things to attend to.

Regards

Charles Sha'ban
TAGI, Regional Office, Amman
Telephone No.: +962 6 5669603
Fax No.: +962 6 5603743
TAGI House, Queen Noor Street
P.O.Box 921100 Amman 11192 Jordan
========================================
>Censorship is wrong and hurts the credibility of any open and
>transparent methodology.
>
>Five posts a day limit is just silly.  If any limit was imposed it
>should be by character count.
>
>If you are in emerging country dialling up at some remote Internet
>location it is better to get 7 short messages
>than two long ones, so I believe this rule is a direct discrimination
>against poorer countries and poorer users.

- --
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 23:27:31 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion draft -- ICANN reorganization

Peter,

I note first that Josh is a good man and one with a vision that we would be
well minded to pay attention to as he has been there and done that.

But it sounds here as though you may be suggesting an alternative to ICANN's
structure and a way to route around their problems.

Do you believe at this time emerging countries would be wise to make such a
move?  I also note with great satisfaction your tone of caring for the end
user and cost analysis that actually effects them.  Here is a reorganization
package I could truly get behind.

How can we knock down costs and increase accessibility and reliability?  It
sounds like you and Josh may be on to something.

Best to both of you!

Sincerely,
Eric

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> 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

- --
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 23:39:12 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Mr. Cerf,

Surely you jest?

You have the audacity to suppose what is best for users.  You are an Ivory tower twit.  I read in an article just last week you cannot even hook up your own
internet at home.  You stated that you would have someone run a t1 line to your home. You are so far removed and vacated from real users that Worldcom should
elevate you to saint so you are assured of living with your own kind.

The U.S. already has millions of online voters.  Why can't you people do the same world wide.  You cry the same old tyrant song, "we cannot have elections to
replace me because I cannot make them fair" Bullshit!

Never, Never never assume that you can make decisions for us users because you are an abuser and have no decency for us users.

Have a nice day!
Eric

vint cerf wrote:

> At 11:50 PM 3/17/2002 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >
> >These candidates are supposed to represent every area of the globe in proportion of 300.000.000 people each,
>
> we know it is impossible to have direct representation for 500M users of the Internet. Similarly it is
> impossible to directly represent every country in the world. The board is supposed to be composed of
> people who can think about the needs of the Internet and its users, providers, etc as members of a
> team: the board of trustees of ICANN. Every director is in fact responsible to ICANN to do the best
> he or she can to think about the Internet as a whole in making policy determinations for ICANN.
>
> >
> >
> >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?
>
> Assuming staggered terms the selection process would be annual wouldn't it?
>
> >>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?
>
> this is certainly an approach worth pursuing with the various funding constituencies.
>
> >When will we see the ICANN rates?
>
> when the proposed budget emerges probably at or before Bucharest.
>
> >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

- --
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 23:46:53 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: FYI: [Fwd: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender]

Now folks we have a real problem.  First we censor and then we shut down the GA full.
Also now my posts are taking over an hour to get through to protocol.
Of course why shouldn't the GA follow our staff's example on breaking agreements.
Alexander you are either being a dupe or you are being way wrong!

Can you be suspended for behaviour or just words and number of posts?

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Eric,
>
>   I am forwarding this to you FYI...
>
> --
> 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
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 02:32:43 -0500
> From: Mail Delivery System <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
>
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim).
>
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>
>   [email-masked]
>     SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:<[email-masked]>:
>     host www.cafeinternet.info [209.126.163.78]: 550 5.0.0 Mail rejected due to possible SPAM
>   [email-masked]
>     SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:<[email-masked]>:
>     host www.hi-tek.com [209.126.163.71]: 550 5.0.0 Mail rejected due to possible SPAM
>
> ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
>
> Return-path: <[email-masked]>
> Received: from user-v3qs45t.dialup.mindspring.com ([199.174.16.189] helo=ix.netcom.com)
>         by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
>         id 16mrdH-0004fC-00; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 02:32:39 -0500
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 01:33:25 -0800
> From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
> Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win95; U; 16bit)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: "Eric Dierker (Now chief of VN global marketing)" <[email-masked]>
> CC: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>,
>         eric Dierker #2 <[email-masked]>,
>         eric Dierker #3 <[email-masked]>
> Subject: DNSO GA Full interestingly down now...
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Eric,
>
> FYI:  Just to let you know, DNSO GA Full ml is down....
> Curious the timing isn't it???
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail [email-masked]
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:48:42 +0200
From: "Charles Shaban" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re(2): [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Well I think this is gone too far, remember that without the work of
Mr. Cerf (and his colleague) there will not have been an Internet and
we could not negotiate like we are doing now, you know Internet runs
on the TCP/IP protocol which Mr. Cerf made available.

Everyone have the right to express his own views but not in this way.
Even the example you are using that he could not connect his home to
Internet, well a simple management rule (by the way, I am middle
management in my company), you should not do another employee's work,
you should concentrate on your work. Believe me if Mr. Cerf connected
his own T1 line then this will be wrong, because he wasted time that
he can spend on more important issues that he is responsible for.

Regards

Charles Sha'ban
TAGI, Regional Office, Amman
Telephone No.: +962 6 5669603
Fax No.: +962 6 5603743
TAGI House, Queen Noor Street
P.O.Box 921100 Amman 11192 Jordan
====================================
[email-masked] writes:
>Mr. Cerf,
>
>Surely you jest?
>
>You have the audacity to suppose what is best for users.  You are an
>Ivory tower twit.  I read in an article just last week you cannot
>even hook up your own
>internet at home.  You stated that you would have someone run a t1
>line to your home. You are so far removed and vacated from real
>users that Worldcom should
>elevate you to saint so you are assured of living with your own kind.
>
>The U.S. already has millions of online voters.  Why can't you
>people do the same world wide.  You cry the same old tyrant song,
>"we cannot have elections to
>replace me because I cannot make them fair" Bullshit!
>
>Never, Never never assume that you can make decisions for us users
>because you are an abuser and have no decency for us users.
>
>Have a nice day!
>Eric

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:30:25 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

I am not sure I can dig out the information from archives but the 
whole voting process was considered a one-shot effort, to be followed
by evaluation, which has now been done. For privacy and convenience,
ICANN committed to limiting the use of the voting mailing list to
election matters only. The proposals from ALSC suggest a new structure
for at-large participation and that is why the invitation has been
issued. There is no direct connection between the one-shot voting
subset of interested parties and the invitation to create a new
at-large structure.

vint

At 10:35 PM 3/17/2002 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>Thank you for your prompt response Dr. Cerf.  I wonder if
>you might have any insight as to why Kristy McKee, myself,
>and thousands of others, are being asked to "rejoin" when
>we're already voting Members of the Corporation? 

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:47:30 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Jamie,

you may well be right that this won't work - which is one reason we have
asked the GAC to respond with its own ideas. The going-in proposal was
that countries would have to reach consensus within regions as to a
candidate for that region. Keep in mind that the intent of naming a
director is NOT to "represent" a particular point of view but to serve
all of ICANN and the Internet Community to the best of his/her ability.

I do not, for example, believe that the at-large elected directors have
a different role or responsibility than those appointed by ASO or PSO.
Each director is responsible for all of the ICANN activities and has
fiduciary responsibility for all Internet's constituents.

Vint

At 07:35 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
>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
>

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:19:57 -0400 (CLT)
From: Patricio Poblete <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?

[">" = Abel Wisman]
> 
> [...] and since the
> governments already installed these boards (ccTLD's)

For most countries, it is not true that their ccTLD administrators have
been appointment by the local government.

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:09:37 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

vint cerf wrote:
> 
> I am not sure I can dig out the information from archives but the
> whole voting process was considered a one-shot effort, to be followed
> by evaluation, which has now been done. 

With all due respect, Dr. Cerf, if you cannot dig out such
informaton from the archives why should we accept the idea
that the whole voting process was considered a one-shot
effort at the time of its inception?  From what I
remember, there was no talk whatsoever of the last
election being a one-shot deal until well after the event
itself (approx. one year later).  I'm sure many of us
(tens of thousands, in fact) would appreciate any effort
you might make in actually producing the relevant
information you cite above.

>For privacy and convenience,
> ICANN committed to limiting the use of the voting mailing list to
> election matters only. 

Well, the term of the current AtLarge Directors is
expiring, it would appear as if an election is in order. 
Especially given the fact that there has been no effort to
restructure ICANN in any way to date.  Why should the
AtLarge Membership be the only appendage of the
Corporation to be treated in such a singular manner?

>The proposals from ALSC suggest a new structure
> for at-large participation and that is why the invitation has been
> issued. There is no direct connection between the one-shot voting
> subset of interested parties and the invitation to create a new
> at-large structure.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that what we
are witnessing currently is the implementation of the
ALSC's reccommendations.  Can you please point out the
Board resolution which ratifies the ALSC proposal?

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:48:22 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Selecting an ICANN Board Member

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:50:27 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

> At 20:26 17/03/02, vint cerf wrote:

> >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.

<snip>

> 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...

<snip>

> 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?

Hi Jefsey

Nice point.  Choosing a UN General Secretary involves a lot of back room
"wheeling and dealing".  I prefer direct elections myself.

That way the electorate can decide, for themselves, what the "selection
criteria" are and whether or not the candidates meet those criteria.

Thus, if somebody wants to vote for a Vint Cerf because he is the "father of
the internet" or because he "has a sexy voice" or because he "presents like an
elder statesperson", that is entirely up to that voter.

With a large enough electorate, the person elected is most likely to be
reasonably competent, sufficiently wise and quite popular ala Karl Auerbach,
Andy Mueller-Maguhn or even Vint Cerf himself.

Of course, whether ICANN wants that or not is another story :)

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 08:57:33 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

the resolution that implemented the ALSC proposal, except for the
election component, should be on the website already. See preliminary
report of Accra meeting

vint

At 08:09 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>If I understand you correctly, you are saying that what we
>are witnessing currently is the implementation of the
>ALSC's reccommendations.  Can you please point out the
>Board resolution which ratifies the ALSC proposal?

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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:01:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

ICANN's experience with picking noncom's is pretty telling.  The one that
picked the candidates for the at-large last time was a stacked groups with
no one at all from the 'loyal opposition'.  Not surprisingly they only
picked candidates friendly to management.  And got pasted in both
N.America and Europe.

The NomCom for the IPR was selected in a manner that produced a group
unable or unwilling (by design?) to discharge its duties.  No one has yet
appologized for this or even tried to explain it.

The Lynn plan is a non-starter for a large number of reasons, not least
mission gallop (also reflected in the Touton memo).  But one of the
reasons it is hard to take it seriously is the failure to describe a
noncom procedure that is visibly fair, and not likely to be captured by
the management.  

The IETF uses a nomcom that is randomly selected from members who attend
meetings and volunteer.  Since ICANN has driven away so many of its
members, and since meetings are rare and in expensive locations, physical
attendence cannot be an element of selection for the nomcom.  But nor can
the staff be allowed to have the power to stack the deck, as they have
amply demonstrated they are not able to discharge this function in a
competent manner.  Who then?  

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, vint cerf wrote:

> At 11:50 PM 3/17/2002 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >
> >These candidates are supposed to represent every area of the globe in proportion of 300.000.000 people each,
> 
> we know it is impossible to have direct representation for 500M users of the Internet. Similarly it is
> impossible to directly represent every country in the world. The board is supposed to be composed of
> people who can think about the needs of the Internet and its users, providers, etc as members of a
> team: the board of trustees of ICANN. Every director is in fact responsible to ICANN to do the best
> he or she can to think about the Internet as a whole in making policy determinations for ICANN.
> 
> 
> > 
> >
> >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?
> 
> 
> Assuming staggered terms the selection process would be annual wouldn't it?
> 
> 
> >>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? 
> 
> this is certainly an approach worth pursuing with the various funding constituencies.
> 
> >When will we see the ICANN rates?
> 
> when the proposed budget emerges probably at or before Bucharest.
> 
> 
> >jfc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:05:42 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

[cc's trimmed]

"Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, vint cerf wrote:

> the resolution that implemented the ALSC proposal, except for the
> election component, should be on the website already. See preliminary
> report of Accra meeting
> 
> vint

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:03:50 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

vint cerf wrote:
> 
> the resolution that implemented the ALSC proposal, except for the
> election component, should be on the website already. 

Given that the ALSC recommendations included an election
component, and given that the current AtLarge
Directorships are expiring, can you give us any indication
as to the proposed time frame for said election component
to be announced? 

- -- 
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network Inc.
	Toronto, Canada

- ----
direct: 416.422.1034

icq: 34564103
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:45:31 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?

On 2002-03-16 15:11:52 -0800, George Kirikos wrote:

>Take a look at the WHOIS for the domain name "auction-barn.com"

Seems to be somewhat specific.  Checking the whois information for 
my own domain (does-not-exist.org), for instance, I do get a correct 
expiration date. 

(And yes, it's registered with NSI.  There's no need to comment on
that.)

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:12:39 -0500
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Vint,

I understand the Stuart Lynn spent a lot of time talking about Public
Private Partnerships PPPs, which are something I know about from my work in
health care.   PPPs are the instrument of choice for big pharma, because
they believe it will provide a mechanism to manage and control public health
policy, while socializing the costs, and reducing the influence of civil
society on policy making.  The public pays, but the big pharma companies
control how the money is spent.  At least, that is what they want.  There
are also some who think this is the best way to get the private sector to do
good works, with an emphasis on the incentives to the firms, coupled with
moral suasion.   And there are also some PPPs that are led more by private
donors or NGOs, and seek a cooperative relationship with companies on
specific issues.  Indeed, I was in NYC during Accra on a meeting to create a
new PPP called DNDi, a non-profit corporation to develop drugs for neglected
diseases (an effort that I am supportive of, being coordinated by the Nobel
prize winning MSF).  One thing that should be clear is the wide diversity of
structures for all of these PPPs.  You can look at info on 78 of them at
http://www.ippph.org , see the big pharma view here:
http://www.ifpma.org/PublicPrivate.htm , and some typical NGO criticism
here: http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/PPI/PPIs%20introduction.html.    Among
the typical criticisms are too little transparency, too much corporate
control, and that the public does not obtain sufficient benefits from its
investments.   But of course, some are thought to work well, some poorly.
What strikes me about the ICANN proposal is how inappropriate is the model
of having governments choose the board members.  If the ICANN staff and
board really want a large staff and a big budget and can't pay for it from
private sector funding, there is no reason to assume you have to turn ICANN
into a PPP regulator gizmo.  This is pretty much the worst way to structure
this.  One can imagine a treaty dealing with the ICANN functions, and one
can imagine a private sector group tying to do it, but putting the two
together begs the question of what type of a new governance system is being
created.   We aren't talking about funding R&D into TB or sleeping sickness.
We are talking about enormous potential power to control the Internet.  If
it looks like fascism to some it is because it looks a lot like fascism.
I'm not sure this is the way you want to go.  Why not something a little
more tame like contracts for services?  Is this because some in ICANN don't
like the idea that the contracts could ever be rebid to a different group?

    Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

> Jamie,
>
> you may well be right that this won't work - which is one reason we have
> asked the GAC to respond with its own ideas. The going-in proposal was
> that countries would have to reach consensus within regions as to a
> candidate for that region. Keep in mind that the intent of naming a
> director is NOT to "represent" a particular point of view but to serve
> all of ICANN and the Internet Community to the best of his/her ability.
>
> I do not, for example, believe that the at-large elected directors have
> a different role or responsibility than those appointed by ASO or PSO.
> Each director is responsible for all of the ICANN activities and has
> fiduciary responsibility for all Internet's constituents.
>
> Vint
>
> At 07:35 PM 3/17/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
> >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
> >
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:15:59 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

please also note the verbatim board discussion in which a number
of directors expressed the hope that elections might be possible
if/when the deficiencies documented in the ALSC report and elsewhere
can be overcome.

vint

At 09:05 AM 3/18/2002 -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>[cc's trimmed]
>
>"Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
>
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, vint cerf wrote:
>
>> the resolution that implemented the ALSC proposal, except for the
>> election component, should be on the website already. See preliminary
>> report of Accra meeting
>> 
>> vint
>
>-- 
>                Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
>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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1089
*************************