Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1091
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 19 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1091

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:47:59 -0500
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

I agree with Vint that once elected to the board, the directors should take
the broader view.  That does not mean, of course, that everyone will see the
same broader view.  And I don't think Vint is saying this either.  Who
chooses the board is still the topic of the day, and one that the current
board is asking to control, without much outside influence.  Vint seems to
be saying (correct me if wrong) that everything is still on the table,
including extending terms of existing elected members and accepting seats on
the board from the new at large organization, once the thing is actually
organized.  He also seems to be saying that also on the table are all of the
other alternatives, including Lynn's proposals.  What is not encouraging
from the Accra meeting is the thin evidence of incumbent board member
support for elected  board members.  Not even all of the elected board
members support this, and none of the non-elected ones seem vocal in support
of elections.   To Esther's credit, as a non-board member who actually gave
up her seat, she pushed for elections in Accra.

One question I would put to Vint concerns proposals for a rebid of the
DOC/ICANN contract.  Since Lynn and some board members want to scrap the
orginal deal, and propose something so radically different, would he support
a rebid on the DOC contract, to allow other visions of ICANN to compete on a
level playing field?   This is a serious question, and one that I believe
ICANN board members could support, if confident of the benefits and appeal
of their own ideas and proposals.  Or, put another way, should ICANN spent
its money to fight such a rebid, through expenditures on lobbyists, PR
agents and lawyers, if one is proposed?

   Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Mike Roberts" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Eric Weisberg"
<[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

> not sure this is quantifiable as much as it is to feel fiduciary
> responsibility to all users of the Internet, providers, vendors of
> hardware and software, in the areas for which ICANN has policy
> responsibility. Trying to balance the wide range of interests seems
> more responsible than taking a narrow perspective based on the
> "origin" of a board seat. that does not mean to neglect the portion
> of the community from which a board seat emanates but rather to
> treat that segment with equal respect as the others.
>
> vint
>
>
>
> At 01:54 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >ummmmm in the interest of developing some concepts about structure, how
does one quantify and/or measure this 'holistic sense'?
>
>

- --
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 14:51:12 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

Vint, no one can argue with these goals. But I am looking towards a structure that is less dependent on the "I will know it when I
see it" style of quantification, because that tends to translate poorly into sustainable structures.

vint cerf wrote:

> not sure this is quantifiable as much as it is to feel fiduciary
> responsibility to all users of the Internet, providers, vendors of
> hardware and software, in the areas for which ICANN has policy
> responsibility. Trying to balance the wide range of interests seems
> more responsible than taking a narrow perspective based on the
> "origin" of a board seat. that does not mean to neglect the portion
> of the community from which a board seat emanates but rather to
> treat that segment with equal respect as the others.
>
> vint
>
> At 01:54 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >ummmmm in the interest of developing some concepts about structure, how does one quantify and/or measure this 'holistic sense'?

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:04:21 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Non-US Actors (was "Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization")

Hi Jamie

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:19:46 -0500, James Love wrote:

> Since this seems to be mostly about money and authority . . .

Perhaps *only* about money and authority (if you include "security" in with
"authority).

> Right now there is much dissatisfaction among non-US actors with
> the USG's sole control.

True.  But I'd ask those on this GA list to assist in specifying exactly who
these dissatisfied "non-US actors" might be.  For example among the ccTLDs,
would we include Nominet of .uk?  Or those countries which have not signed up
contracts?  Or the country code registries/registrars who are not represented
in the DNSO constituencies?  Or those ccTLDs who have no funds to pay ICANN
invoices?  Or the Europeans who don't like the lack of *whois* privacy?  Or
those who think that .eu is not a country code?  Or the multilinguals who
(a) are working on internationalised domain names or (b) do not get timely
and accurate translations?  Or international trade mark owners who want UDRP
extended to country codes?  Or international domain name owners/holders
who don't want UDRP at any price?

Identifying those who are dissatisfied might clarify some thoughts here.

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 22:14:21 +0200
From: "Charles Shaban" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re(2): [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Dear Jeffrey,

Although I did not want to reply so as not to keep exchanging email,
and keep the list for its main purpose, I will reply only by this
email, any other thing I am ready to reply in private.

>  The work on TCP/IP was not JUST the work of Vint Cerf.  Many
>people worked on that protocol including myself.  So the credit
>attributed to Vint in this area is, frankly a gross exaggeration.

Thank you then too, but it is known that the two people behind the
TCP/IP were Vint Cerf & Bob Kahn (I forgot his name in the first
email).

>  Perhaps in Aman you have restrictions of a form of speech.  But in
>most of the free world we do not.  If in your country there are such
>restrictions on expression, you have my sympathies and condolences..
>I am quite sure that Eric, and many others will agree with me on
>that.

I do not want to get into politics here, but sometimes the media
shows fact in wrong way, in Jordan we have no restrictions of any
kind (unless you are targeting the stability of the country which I
am sure in all the countries you will be taken to trial), even better
than most of the "free world" countries. As some know Jordan is one
of the safest countries.

>  ROFLMAO!  Well that is one of the biggest laughs I have had in some
>time!
>Thank you for sharing it with all of us...

And I thought you (in the developed countries) use time better than
us (the developing countries).

Best 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

- --
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 16:06:27 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] North American At-Large Director sues ICANN 

Excerpt:  The Electronic Frontier Foundation today
helped a member of the ICANN Board of Directors file a
lawsuit forcing ICANN management to grant him some
reasonable access to corporate records.
http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/eff-release-mar-18-2002.txt
- --
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 16:46:36 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] North American At-Large Director sues ICANN

It's about goddamned time!!

How can the rest of us contribute?

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Excerpt:  The Electronic Frontier Foundation today
> helped a member of the ICANN Board of Directors file a
> lawsuit forcing ICANN management to grant him some
> reasonable access to corporate records.
> http://www.cavebear.com/icann-board/eff-release-mar-18-2002.txt
> --
> 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

- -- 
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 23:06:53 +0100
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] March 11 to 14  - ICANN Accra meeting documents

[To: [email-masked], [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

A collection of URLs and notes relating to the ICANN meetings in Accra may
be found in:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020311.ICANNaccra-related-documents.html

This list is by no means complete, but other documents will be added as they
arrive and please feel free to add any by contacting the DNSO Secretariat
at:
[email-masked]

The Names Council meeting on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 allowed remote
particpation and so was recorded in the usual way:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020312.NCteleconf.mp3

We apologise for the very poor quality of the recording, due to
circumstances beyond our control.

Thank you.

Kind regards,
DNSO Secretariat

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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:28:47 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] RE: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

At 00:36 18/03/02 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:

>So consider yourselves forewarned, if the group tries to get its
>independence from him, expect him to obstruct it with every means at
>his disposal, including the list of members and their contact data.

FUD .

The database is already sent to Karl Auerbach on a regular basis and will 
be sent to two other elected At Large directors as well to be held in 
escrow on behalf of the members.
The mistakes of the IDNO will not be repeated.
New mistakes will be made by whoever chooses to act.

- --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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:54:26 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

ummmmm in the interest of developing some concepts about structure, how does one quantify and/or measure this 'holistic sense'?

vint cerf wrote:

> it would seem that eric and I are both correct in the sense that eric
> argues that specific knowledge needs to be "represented" (as opposed to
> groups?) and I think the directors must have feel a holistic sense of
> responsibility to Internet as a whole.
>
> vint
>
> At 09:37 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
> >Eric is correct.  In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998, there was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names, protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three other seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at large, which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt organization boards.
> >
> >But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and the facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected parts of the Internet?"  Having representation from the experts was, in Jon's view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening the oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a consensus based organization representing all relevant interests.
>
> --
> 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

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:30:18 -0800
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] North American At-Large Director sues ICANN

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> 
> It's about goddamned time!!
> 
> How can the rest of us contribute?

One obvious way would be to join or donate to EFF.
www.eff.org

There are several other organisations with overlapping goals,
which might suit your tastes or priorities better. Two that
I can think of are:

www.gilc.org
wwwcpsr.org

No doubt there are several others.

If elections aren't practical (I'm not convinced, but there's
certainly an argument they aren't), then giving organisations
like this board seats as plausible representatives of the
public might make more sense than going to gov'ts.
- --
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 14:38:07 -0800
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

vint cerf wrote:
> 
> not sure this is quantifiable as much as it is to feel fiduciary
> responsibility to all users of the Internet, providers, vendors of
> hardware and software, in the areas for which ICANN has policy
> responsibility. 

Excuse me once again Dr. Cerf, but which areas are those
exactly (i.e. for which ICANN has policy responsibility)? 
I was under the impression that ICANN's mandate was that
of a technical coordination body.  Am I mistaken? 

> 
> At 01:54 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >ummmmm in the interest of developing some concepts about structure, how does one quantify and/or measure this 'holistic sense'?

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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:04:21 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Non-US Actors (was "Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization")

Hi Jamie

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:19:46 -0500, James Love wrote:

> Since this seems to be mostly about money and authority . . .

Perhaps *only* about money and authority (if you include "security" in with
"authority).

> Right now there is much dissatisfaction among non-US actors with
> the USG's sole control.

True.  But I'd ask those on this GA list to assist in specifying exactly who
these dissatisfied "non-US actors" might be.  For example among the ccTLDs,
would we include Nominet of .uk?  Or those countries which have not signed up
contracts?  Or the country code registries/registrars who are not represented
in the DNSO constituencies?  Or those ccTLDs who have no funds to pay ICANN
invoices?  Or the Europeans who don't like the lack of *whois* privacy?  Or
those who think that .eu is not a country code?  Or the multilinguals who
(a) are working on internationalised domain names or (b) do not get timely
and accurate translations?  Or international trade mark owners who want UDRP
extended to country codes?  Or international domain name owners/holders
who don't want UDRP at any price?

Identifying those who are dissatisfied might clarify some thoughts here.

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
- --
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 14:47:59 -0500
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

I agree with Vint that once elected to the board, the directors should take
the broader view.  That does not mean, of course, that everyone will see the
same broader view.  And I don't think Vint is saying this either.  Who
chooses the board is still the topic of the day, and one that the current
board is asking to control, without much outside influence.  Vint seems to
be saying (correct me if wrong) that everything is still on the table,
including extending terms of existing elected members and accepting seats on
the board from the new at large organization, once the thing is actually
organized.  He also seems to be saying that also on the table are all of the
other alternatives, including Lynn's proposals.  What is not encouraging
from the Accra meeting is the thin evidence of incumbent board member
support for elected  board members.  Not even all of the elected board
members support this, and none of the non-elected ones seem vocal in support
of elections.   To Esther's credit, as a non-board member who actually gave
up her seat, she pushed for elections in Accra.

One question I would put to Vint concerns proposals for a rebid of the
DOC/ICANN contract.  Since Lynn and some board members want to scrap the
orginal deal, and propose something so radically different, would he support
a rebid on the DOC contract, to allow other visions of ICANN to compete on a
level playing field?   This is a serious question, and one that I believe
ICANN board members could support, if confident of the benefits and appeal
of their own ideas and proposals.  Or, put another way, should ICANN spent
its money to fight such a rebid, through expenditures on lobbyists, PR
agents and lawyers, if one is proposed?

   Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>
To: "Dan Steinberg" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Mike Roberts" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Eric Weisberg"
<[email-masked]>; "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

> not sure this is quantifiable as much as it is to feel fiduciary
> responsibility to all users of the Internet, providers, vendors of
> hardware and software, in the areas for which ICANN has policy
> responsibility. Trying to balance the wide range of interests seems
> more responsible than taking a narrow perspective based on the
> "origin" of a board seat. that does not mean to neglect the portion
> of the community from which a board seat emanates but rather to
> treat that segment with equal respect as the others.
>
> vint
>
>
>
> At 01:54 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >ummmmm in the interest of developing some concepts about structure, how
does one quantify and/or measure this 'holistic sense'?
>
>

- --
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 22:14:21 +0200
From: "Charles Shaban" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re(2): [ga] Re:  Discussion Draft -- ICANN Reorganization

Dear Jeffrey,

Although I did not want to reply so as not to keep exchanging email,
and keep the list for its main purpose, I will reply only by this
email, any other thing I am ready to reply in private.

>  The work on TCP/IP was not JUST the work of Vint Cerf.  Many
>people worked on that protocol including myself.  So the credit
>attributed to Vint in this area is, frankly a gross exaggeration.

Thank you then too, but it is known that the two people behind the
TCP/IP were Vint Cerf & Bob Kahn (I forgot his name in the first
email).

>  Perhaps in Aman you have restrictions of a form of speech.  But in
>most of the free world we do not.  If in your country there are such
>restrictions on expression, you have my sympathies and condolences..
>I am quite sure that Eric, and many others will agree with me on
>that.

I do not want to get into politics here, but sometimes the media
shows fact in wrong way, in Jordan we have no restrictions of any
kind (unless you are targeting the stability of the country which I
am sure in all the countries you will be taken to trial), even better
than most of the "free world" countries. As some know Jordan is one
of the safest countries.

>  ROFLMAO!  Well that is one of the biggest laughs I have had in some
>time!
>Thank you for sharing it with all of us...

And I thought you (in the developed countries) use time better than
us (the developing countries).

Best 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

- --
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 14:51:12 -0500
From: Dan Steinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

Vint, no one can argue with these goals. But I am looking towards a structure that is less dependent on the "I will know it when I
see it" style of quantification, because that tends to translate poorly into sustainable structures.

vint cerf wrote:

> not sure this is quantifiable as much as it is to feel fiduciary
> responsibility to all users of the Internet, providers, vendors of
> hardware and software, in the areas for which ICANN has policy
> responsibility. Trying to balance the wide range of interests seems
> more responsible than taking a narrow perspective based on the
> "origin" of a board seat. that does not mean to neglect the portion
> of the community from which a board seat emanates but rather to
> treat that segment with equal respect as the others.
>
> vint
>
> At 01:54 PM 3/18/2002 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
> >ummmmm in the interest of developing some concepts about structure, how does one quantify and/or measure this 'holistic sense'?

- --
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:[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

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:30:17 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ICANN & US policy

Stuart,

There are many portions of your reform proposal that seem to me to be at odds 
with U.S. policy as enumerated in the White Paper.  To cite just one example, 
the White Paper states: "the new Corporation should restrict official 
government representation on the Board of Directors without precluding 
governments and intergovernmental organizations from participating as 
Internet users or in a non-voting advisory capacity."  

Are you suggesting that ICANN should reorganize in a manner that defies 
current US policy?

- -- danny --

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

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

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:41:01 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 13:08 [=GMT-0500], vint cerf wrote:

> it would seem that eric and I are both correct in the sense that eric
> argues that specific knowledge needs to be "represented" (as opposed to
> groups?) and I think the directors must have feel a holistic sense of
> responsibility to Internet as a whole.

Holistic, yes, but will that be the case if the majority of the Board is
made up of people who make a living in names and numbers? More so, since
ICANN regulates a market, perhaps even a cartel. It seems a bit odd to let
the supplier side make the decisions alone. 'Consumers' cannot go
elsewhere, neither for their IP addresses nor for their domain names. Let
the market decide doesn't work. So?

- -- 
Marc Schneiders

 >
> vint
>
> At 09:37 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
> >Eric is correct.  In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998, there was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names, protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three other seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at large, which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt organization boards.
> >
> >But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and the facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected parts of the Internet?"  Having representation from the experts was, in Jon's view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening the oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a consensus based organization representing all relevant interests.
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:49:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign removing expiration dates from WHOIS Data?

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 15:45 [=GMT+0100], Thomas Roessler wrote:

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

Then there is no need to state that either.

- --
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 20:38:01 -0500
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

I agree with Vint very much on the problem of the locked-in consumer.
We have apparently around 200 domains, including
appraising-Microsoft.org, tap.org, cptech.org, essential.org and so on.
It is costly to pay the annual registration fees year after year, and
extremely costly to switch domains.   The current DNSO effort to take
away voting rights from the NCC is one more tilt toward the cartel.
One good thing the ICANN board and staff has done is to take a look at
the problems faced by domain name holders, in terms of prices...  for
the Verisign and some new open TLDs.  Not really as aggressive as I
would like, but they at least recognize this is an issue.  But in terms
of voting interests, ICANN from the beginning has not wanted to give
domain holder much of a voice.  Hence the failure to create the
individual constituency in the DNSO, the constant threats to remove
voting for the NCC, and the overbalanced representation by the registrar
and registry businesses.   Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Schneiders" <[email-masked]>
To: "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, at 13:08 [=GMT-0500], vint cerf wrote:
>
> > it would seem that eric and I are both correct in the sense that
eric
> > argues that specific knowledge needs to be "represented" (as opposed
to
> > groups?) and I think the directors must have feel a holistic sense
of
> > responsibility to Internet as a whole.
>
> Holistic, yes, but will that be the case if the majority of the Board
is
> made up of people who make a living in names and numbers? More so,
since
> ICANN regulates a market, perhaps even a cartel. It seems a bit odd to
let
> the supplier side make the decisions alone. 'Consumers' cannot go
> elsewhere, neither for their IP addresses nor for their domain names.
Let
> the market decide doesn't work. So?
>
> --
> Marc Schneiders
>
>  >
> > vint
> >
> > At 09:37 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
> > >Eric is correct.  In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998,
there was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names,
protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three other
seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at large,
which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt organization boards.
> > >
> > >But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors
bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and the
facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected parts of
the Internet?"  Having representation from the experts was, in Jon's
view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening the
oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a consensus
based organization representing all relevant interests.
> >
> > --
> > 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: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:23:36 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [ga] Substance over rhetoric - a constructive challenge

>> vint cerf wrote:
[Snip]

>> The board is well aware of the problem of expiring board
>> seats and believes it must take an action at the next meeting or at
>> the latest, shanghai in october if these seats are to be preserved.
[Snip]

The board has a fiduciary duty with respect to the filling of those
elected seats.  Excuses about mechanics will not relieve any board
member of that fiduciary duty.

There is no excuse for the board permitting ICANN to not follow the
MoU or its bylaws.

Directors are responsible for oversight and all actions of the
corporation -- the buck stops there; not with staff.

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
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 22:28:56 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Forwarded from the NCDNHC list

This was sent to ICANN Board yesterday. So far I have 
received a response from only two Board members, 
Karl Auerbach and Amadeu Abril-Abril, both of whom
expressed some sympathy for our concerns. Normally Vint
Cerf is quite responsive, if only to acknowledge receipt
and issue some noncommital response defending his
actions - in this case his silence is interesting.

=====

Dr. Dr. Cerf:
I have learned how the Board acted on the .org divestiture 
and am disappointed and even a little shocked. It appears 
that you decided not to follow the DNSO's unanimous 
recommendation that the ORG be divested to a non-profit 
registry representative of noncommercial Internet interests. 

Amazingly, this was the one part of the policy that was never 
controversial. It was supported by business users, IPR 
representatives, registrars and of course the noncommercial 
entities themselves.

I spent about 8 months working on the .org Task Force 
and related activities. We followed the designated ICANN 
process to the letter. We achieved a real consensus, and 
a unanimous vote. Almost all of the public comments were
favorable, and the few that were not did not provide any 
basis for deviating from the recommendation of a 
non-profit registry representative of noncommercial 
internet interests.

There are serious issues of credibility and commitment here. 
If ICANN is to establish legitimacy and stability it must adhere 
to its own processes. Its decisions must be backed by careful
documentation of their rationales (there is not, as far as I can
tell, ANY reasoning or documentation behind your decision.)
Above all, it must respect the work of the people
who devote their time to making your processes work. 

Do you share that view?

If so, can you explain to me why, after this result, anyone 
should take ICANN and its processes seriously and commit 
any time or money to them? 

Your argument, made during the Board meeting,
that the DNSO offers only "advice," and that advice can
be disregarded, is frankly insulting to the people who are
required to spend thousands of dollars to maintain 
membership in DNSO and orders of magnitude more than
that in donated time and materials. 

It is also legally incorrect. Please read the ICANN bylaws regarding 
the role of supporting  organizations.* Under the bottom-up model 
that Dr. Postel designed, policy directions are supposed to originate 
with supporting organizations and be passed up to the Board.
If the Board disagrees with an element of the policy, it is
supposed to return the policy to the supporting organization
for modification. The consensus-development apparatus lies in
the SOs. The Board is supposed to follow consensus not 
dictate it.

Certainly the Board has the *power* to ignore its supporting
organizations, but should it? If it does, why are they there? 

A decent respect for ICANN's own processes, a sense of public 
accountability, not to mention simple common sense, would 
dictate following a policy that took such a long time to develop 
and commanded such widespread support.

I hope you have a good explanation for your actions in Accra.
I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
Dr. Milton Mueller
Former Names Council member for NCDNHC
Former Chair, Names Council Task Force on .org

* Supporting Organizations shall have "the primary responsibility for 
developing and recommending substantive policies regarding those 
matters falling within their specific responsibilities." ICANN bylaws,

Article VI, Section 2(b).

"Article VI, Section 2(f) If the Board declines to accept any
recommendation of a Supporting Organization, it shall return the
recommendation to the Supporting Organization for further consideration,
along with a statement of the reasons it declines to accept the
recommendation."
- --
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 #1091
*************************