Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1102
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, March 25 2002           Volume 01 : Number 1102

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

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:45:33 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Restructuring proposal

On 20:37 23/03/02, [email-masked] said:
>I have completed a restructuring proposal that has been forwarded to the
>members of the Evolution and Reform Committee.  The document is posted at
>http://www.icannworld.org/evolution.htm
>I look forward to reviewing the proposals that the rest of the community will
>submit.

Dear Danny,
your proposition is of high interest. I will link it to the WECANN site I 
plan as a common working tool toawards a consensual ICANN Internet 
Community Pact.

Let me however at this stage ask you two questions:

- - a few categories seem to be missing here which actually have a say in 
real life about the Internet. Quickly: content, telcos, registrants, 
e-business, media, ASPs, financing, Govs, consumers, manufacturers, 
cultures and religions, justice and policy, defense.

- - don't you think your proposition which has a lot of merits is more a 
proposition for a national community than for an international institution. 
I think the first problem we face is to know where we address the 
international problem: either at the top and we have 244 problems one shot. 
Or at the bottom and we have 244 problems n shots, n being the number of 
vertical themes.

I also have a suggestion. As I said I think about the WECANN site. I would 
like to set it up as a real working tool and I need help for that. I would 
like to establish a link to every serious proposition like yours for the 
people to compare.
- - an executive summary would be great as an introduction
- - a comparative grid would be great too : the propositions by the main 
points. To do that I would need a list of the main issues we have to 
address and the way the propositions address them.

Examples:
- - do you propose ICANN to stay:
   - incorprated in California or where
   - a non profit corporation or what
   - a no member corporation or what
- - do you propose the ICANN to stay a flat structure or structured as an 
international structure
etc...

Obviously the wording is of the essence. My idea would be to establish a 
mailing list for all the proposition writers so they may contribute to the 
site and get their proposition best presented.
Your comments welcome.
Jefsey

- --
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, 23 Mar 2002 16:31:23 -0500
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure - Another "Load"

Mr. Williams:

I do not intend to give my personal number to you or to anyone else.  As I
mentioned in my earlier message, my participation in ICANN is purely
voluntary.  I will be more than willing to speak with you from my office on
Monday (provided you can be civil).  You are correct that I am today at
home.  I simply had checked my office e-mails from my home earlier (as I am
doing now) and responded to you.  I fail to see how my not being available
today should in anyway cause you suspicion.  I typically spend weekends with
my family. I appreciate the fact that you are anxious to discuss the NC call
that took place on Friday; however, my duties at ICANN are purely voluntary
and I feel no duty to sacrifice my family time to you or anyone else, unless
I feel there is a pressing need.  In this case, I think our discussion can
wait until Monday.  I apologize in advance if my position offends you --
that certainly is not my intent.

J. Scott Evans

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>; "Cade,Marilyn S -
LGA" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>; "icann
board address" <[email-masked]>; "NIPC" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure - Another "Load"

> Scott and all assembly members,
>
>   Scott the number listed on the web site you listed,
http://www.adamspat.com/
> is not your personal phone number ( [704] 375-9249 ).  It is also dam
> convenient of you to today as Saturday to finally leave some method
> by which you can be contacted.  The number [704] 375-9249 is for
> a law firm that I assume you are a partner in.  I left a very brief and
> unappreciative Phone mail message at your EXTENSION.  You sir,
> are I suspect hiding behind Phone Mail.  THAT does not engender
> trust.  I now DO NOT trust you.  I will file a complaint with the
> ABA and notify my personal Atty. today.  YOU sir are being
> purposefully misleading.  As such from this point on ANYTHING
> you may say is NOT to be believed.
> So much for honesty and transparency from you, and your participation
> on the ICP-3.  Lets see how Marilyn does...
>
> [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Jeff:
> >
> > I am unwilling to post my phone number on this list.  However, Danny
Younger
> > has my number and it can be found on my firm's web site (which I will
> > apologize in advance for b/c it is slightly pathetic).  The URL is
> > www.adamspat.com
> >
> > J. Scott Evans
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Williams" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
> > <[email-masked]>; "Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>; "icann board address"
> > <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:59 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ga] MP3 technical failure - Another "Load"
> >
> > > Sotiris, Marilyn and all assembly members,
> > >
> > >   I have to agree again with Sotiris to a very great degree.  However
> > > Sotiris made a slight mistake at the end of his reply below by
> > > asking one of the same "Spinmiesters" that have created the mess
> > > in part how to proceed from here.  That is an invite to more
> > > spinmistering and non-productive nonsense or further damage
> > > to stakeholders...  So just asking for more brown fecal
> > > matter to be added to the existing "Load" is not what
> > > I hope you had in mind Sotiris..
> > >
> > >   BTW Marilyn and Scott still awaiting your phone call or
> > > real contact phone number, per your offers...  ???
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I understand "both".    .....and  I know that in order to move
ahead,
> > that
> > > > > Thomas and Alex and you, and others in the GA will need to be
engaged.
> > > >
> > > > Ok Marilyn, let's have a hear to heart.
> > > >
> > > > It is frustrating to hear that our input is desired and to
> > > > _know_ that heretofore our input has been glossed over and
> > > > completely ignored.  To ask a question and get spin in
> > > > return is enough to test anyone's patience, and these fora
> > > > are replete with just such instances of non
> > > > communication.  Many of us are simply tired of knocking on
> > > > the deaf person's door...
> > > >
> > > > > I agree that ICANN has significant problems/challenges.  It's not
easy
> > to be
> > > > > heard or to be effective... however, I attended an ITU Plenipot;
> > several
> > > > > OECD meetings, WIPO meetings....,many meetings of Parliaments and
of
> > US
> > > > > Congress...... After that, I can't envision a governmental
approach to
> > the
> > > > > management of these issues which moves quickly, provides broad
> > consensus
> > > > > development and is above nationalist perspectives. avoids
government
> > > > > encroachment into technical issues of the Internet.
> > > >
> > > > You make a good point here.  I too would hate to see
> > > > governments in charge, but with the prevailing US
> > > > corporate and DoC stranglehold over all things ICANN, it's
> > > > pretty difficult to see a difference between the frying
> > > > pan or the fire, so to speak.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know that many think their voice isn't heard at ICANN - some
would
> > be
> > > > > amazed that the business community complains about the same
issue....
> > > > > but...here's our common challenge:
> > > > >
> > > > > --in multi lateral organizations, only governments have a voice.
You
> > may
> > > > > not think ICANN is much better, but I hope you will give it a
further
> > > > > chance. You can always devolve to governmental oversight.
> > > > >  And you can work now to make it better.
> > > >
> > > > Many of us have been trying to do so for four years.  Case
> > > > in point: At the request of others, I assumed the Chair of
> > > > the WG Review when Greg Burton did his deed and
> > > > mysteriously dropped out, we went on to produce a document
> > > > that was not even mentioned on the DNSO web site and was
> > > > clearly ignored by all of you in the NC. Instead, Theresa
> > > > Swineheart misrepresented the "public input" from the only
> > > > WG to ever produce 2! reports...  Since that time nothing
> > > > has changed in ICANN's methodologies -i.e. give token lip
> > > > service to public input and spin whatever angle you
> > > > please, citing the thousands of postings on the GA list as
> > > > credible input that has been taken into account.  When
> > > > this changes, perhaps many of us will take it upon
> > > > ourselves to start working to "make it better".  So, how
> > > > do you suggest we proceed?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > >
> > > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > >         Hermes Network Inc.
> > > >         Toronto, Canada
> > > >
> > > > ----
> > > > direct: 416.422.1034
> > > >
> > > > icq: 34564103
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> 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, 24 Mar 2002 07:53:34 -0600
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign Procedes with WLS

For those who haven't done so, you may still individually endorse the
GA Response to VeriSign (see http://www.it-ken.net/) by sending an
e-mail to Abel Wisman <[email-masked]>.

- ----
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: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:24:23 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Restructuring Proposal

In response to the Restructuring Proposal that I submitted, Jefsey has posed 
two questions:

The first question concerns categories of entitities that are not directly 
represented at the Board level, such as telcos, media, religious 
organizations, financial institutions, etc.   At issue is which groups are 
deemed major stakeholders in the ICANN process currently, and what 
"evolutionary" provisions have been made to accomodate emerging stakeholder 
groups.

As an organization, we have committed to abiding by certain principles noted 
in the Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Commerce... 
one such principle (representation) states in part:  "These mechanisms will 
promote the flexibility needed to adapt to changes in the composition of the 
Internet user community and their needs."

Jefsey is correct in noting that one deficiency in my proposal is that the 
Director selection process is static rather than dynamic.  There is a manner 
by which this problem may be corrected.  

We are all aware that the composition of any given constituent group changes 
over the course of time as does the total number of members on its roster.  
ICANN has previously accepted the notion that certain threshold requirements 
must be met for any constituent entity that seeks recognition.  Carrying that 
logic forward, it may also be held that a constituent group must maintain a 
certain quantity of members lest it become disaccreditted and lose the right 
to elect representatives to the Board.

I note that ISOC (as but one example) has decommissioned a number of its 
chapters (in that those groups have failed to maintain their numbers at a 
certain level).  Those decommissioned chapters do lose certain privileges.  
The same principle may be applied to ICANN constituencies that seek to have 
representation on the Board.   If a hypothetical threshold level of 50 
members was established as a bare minimum, then it is certainly possible that 
our current ISP constituency (among others) might not qualify as a group 
entitled to seat a Director.  The possibility of "vacancies" would  allow for 
other currently non-recognized organizations to petition for recognition.

This "petition-for-recognition mechanism" creates a challenge process whereby 
emerging stakeholders groups may vie with established groups for 
representation on the Board.   Obviously, certain safeguards will need to be 
established.  In Accra, Alejandro Pisanty pointed to a problem in certain 
Latin American communities during election cycles -- uninformed voters were 
rounded up from the countryside and trucked to the voting box by political 
groups intent on victory at all costs.  We need to be able to feel 
comfortable that constituencies seeking Board level representation haven't 
resorted to practices which have the effect of "stuffing their membership 
roles" just to meet threshold criteria.

Should a given constituent group lose a "challenge" and be replaced by 
another constituency, this will not terminate their involvement in the ICANN 
process (as they will continue to function and may still communicate with the 
Board by way of the Ombudsman that has been established as a liaison to 
organizations that seek to address the Board).

I look forward to further discussion on how we may best structure a flexible 
mechanism that equitably allows emerging stakeholder groups to join ICANN and 
be accorded proper representation, and would like to thank Jefsey for raising 
this issue.

I will respond to Jefsey's second comment in a subsequent post.

- --
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, 24 Mar 2002 14:38:48 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

Note my responses below.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harold Whiting [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

*synopsis:

1. Verisign was never looking for consensus, only how marketable WLS would
be once it became "the only way to get a used domain name".

Chuck: Partially correct in that we were looking for reasonable interest,
not consensus, because no registrar is required to participate.  But it is
very hard to imagine that the WLS will never become the only way to get a
used domain name.  Auctions, direct resale and even some of the other
current secondary market offerings will continue.

2. Verisign believes it is not required to submit to ICANN consensus
process.

Chuck: Wrong.  We are contractually required to submit to consensus policies
and will.  But there is no consensus policy involved in this case.

3. Verisign assumes that everyone who has not spoken out against WLS
(especially those that have never even heard of it) are stron supporters of
WLS.

Chuck: Wrong. On the contrary, we actually think that most people who did
not speak out really don't care too much one way or the other.

4. Since the "official" RC position was staunchly against this, Verisign
uses thier own registrar holdings, and Snap Names' partners too, combined
with the most tortured math and logic concievable, to declare "overwhelming
support" byt the Registrars for WLS.

Chuck: How representative of the the Registrars Constituency's "official
position?"  Tortured math?  Actually we simply applied simple arithmetic.
And the arithmetical results clearly demonstrated enough interest to move
forward.

5. Verisign still firmly maintains that no existing businesses will be
adversely affected by WLS and the resulting monopoly on the "used domain"
market.  After all, now they can simply buy the "new product"!

Chuck: Actually what we concluded was that it was not clear that any current
models would be eliminated.  And we concluded that models that require use
of our systems at extemely inefficient levels did not make good business
sense. 

*The above is strictly my own opinion, based upon the written documents
publicly posted by VGRS. No warranty is made for its accuracy. Your milage
may vary.

- --HJW--
Harold Whiting
- --
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, 24 Mar 2002 12:27:15 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Verisign proceeds with WLS, despite opposition

Hi Chuck,

- --- "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Chuck: Wrong. On the contrary, we actually think that most people who
> did
> not speak out really don't care too much one way or the other.

Quoting from the most recent document:

"VGRS believes that the overwhelming majority of consumers, for whom
practical access to domain name registrations being deleted remains
unaddressed, will enjoy a far better experience when the WLS is offered
at the registry level."

Which consumers have you been talking to, to create this belief? Let me
remind you of the composition of SnapNames' "Hot 100" list, which
they've conveniently removed from their website (used to be at
http://www.snapnames.com/hot100.html ). I've saved a copy at:

http://www.loffs.com/images/hot100.txt

Let us analyze this list, and see who the "overwhelming majority of
consumers" is that Verisign speaks for:

a) UltSearch.com owns 19 of the 100 names (participates on many other
drop systems too). 
b) BuyDomains.com - 16 of the 100 names (all for sale, too!)
c) DirectSeek/PTI Networks/Frank and Michelle Schilling -- 6 names
(participants on other drop systems too).
d) 5 other names were explicitly for sale in the WHOIS info, or were
pointed at Afternic, a domain auction site.
e) Michele Dinoia -- 2 names (a high volume domain registrant via
AWRegistry, among others)
f) 7 names seem to raise some trademark issues:
i) advil.net (and the domain is for sale!)
ii) xeroxprinters.com 
iii) wall-mart.com (redirecting to Amazon.com for now, using the
"hotdealsweb-20" affiliate tag)
iv) NokiaTunes.com
v) HondaAccord.com
vi) VolkswagonParts.com -- redirects to an "abortion is murder" site,
with a picture of a headless fetus (gruesome)
vii) UnitedAir.com (nice use of Flash in the WHOIS; see the WHOIS at
www.netsol.com for this one)

BuyDomains has been outspoken *against* WLS. Who are you talking to,
Chuck?? I don't think the beancounters at Verisign who need new revenue
sources count as "consumers" -- they count as "shareholders and
employees" of Verisign. Maybe in the Verisign dictionary "typical
consumers" = "employees of Verisign"??. It was hilarious to read
Verisign claim that "No comments or questions were offered by members
of the audience at the public GA meeting in Accra, after a brief
explanation of the WLS proposal was presented." Perhaps your definition
of "majority of consumers" is composed primarily of those who would
travel to Ghana, AFRICA to ask you questions???!!?? 

Mike Mann's list of government contact points, and his critique is at:

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg00514.html

When can we expect the documents and official request submitted to
ICANN to be made public for perusal? As registrars in the DNSO RC list
pointed out, the devil is in the details, and it'd be nice to finally
see the full text of the proposal and contracts.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.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, 24 Mar 2002 16:14:40 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Restructuring Proposal

In response to Jeff Williams comments posted to the GA-full list:  
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc09/msg02215.html

The ASO, in fact, has constituencies:  ARIN, RIPE NCC, and APNIC (soon to be 
joined by LACNIC and AFRNIC).  The PSO also has constituent members:  IETF, 
W3C, ITU-U, and ETSI.  Special Interest Groups (SIGs) usually are in a 
position to find an umbrella group (constituency) within which they may 
aggregate.  In the example that you have cited (the Catholic Domain Name 
Holders group, the Buddhist Domain name holders Group and the Moslem's global 
domain name holders group), all three groups would most likely unite their 
efforts within a Domain Name Holder's or Registrant's Constituency.  

Such a constituency would need to vie for a "seat at the table" by 
demonstrating that it has met certain threshold requirements, that it is a 
self-sustaining institution, that it operates to the maximum extent feasible 
in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to 
ensure fairness, that it's participation serves the purposes of the 
Corporation, and that it has a greater claim to representation on the Board 
than another set of stakeholders (perhaps a group whose membership status is 
in default owing to an insufficient membership roster, or whose contributions 
to the ICANN process have been minimal to the degree that input from another 
group would better serve the best interests of the Corporation).

One of the realities of a petition-for-recognition mechanism is that not all 
petitions will be accepted by the Board.  We have already witnessed this 
reality in the previously failed petition of the IDNO.  It is a simple fact 
that the Board will wish to reserve such representation for major 
stakeholders as opposed to minor stakeholders.  

Mr. Williams additionally seems to be arguing for the continued existence of 
the DNSO as an institution.  I would appreciate hearing further arguments as 
to why the DNSO should be retained within a reformed ICANN.
- --
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, 24 Mar 2002 20:57:28 -0500
From: "J. William Semich" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Restructuring Proposal

Danny:

I read your proposal with great interest. I agree with much of it, but it 
seems very weak on the issue that seems of greatest concern to ICANN right 
now: funding.

In light of all the reconsideration being given to ICANN's structure, and 
the concerns raised over funding, I think it would be instructive for all 
to review some of the same concerns I posted to Ira Magaziner and the NTIA 
in Oct., 1998 on the issues of funding ICANN and the dangers of allowing 
independent fiscal autonomy at ICANN. Although some of the actual language 
in the ICANN bylaws has changed since 1998, the basic issues remain the 
same: Who controls the purse strings? And who pays the costs?

That full text of that posting is included below. For my 1998 proposal to 
solve the problems of funding and control please see:

http://www.iana.org/comments/03oct1998-10jan2000/msg00004.html

I think most of the recommendations made then continue to hold true today, 
and should be considered by the Evolution
and Reform Committee and by any others who have efforts underway to 
restructure ICANN as well.

Bill Semich
.NU Domain

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <[email-masked]>
To: NTIA.NTIAHQ(dnspolicy)
Date: 10/3/98 10:19pm
Subject: Lack of Fiscal Accountability in ICANN Proposal

Hello;

Attached is my first set of comments on the ICANN proposal, in Word 97 format.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns to the interested 
parties and stakeholders in this process.

J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)
President and Chief Financial Officer
.NU Domain Ltd
[email-masked]
http://whats.nu

The New IANA-ICANN Bylaws: Who Controls the Money?
By J. William Semich
[email-masked]

The latest set of proposed bylaws (version 5) for the New IANA (Internet 
Assigned Numbers Authority), released on September 29 at IANA's Web Site at 
http://www.iana.org, and currently posted as the ICANN Proposal at 
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/icann/icann.html is 
seriously flawed by its lack of fiscal accountability to all of us who will 
use its services and pay its fees.

If the bylaws are approved unchanged by the White House as the basis for 
the Internet's first independent governance mechanism, the new ICANN 
Internet Authority would be able to set a wide range of Internet-related 
fees of any amount without constraint, float bonds of any amount which must 
be funded by future revenues, as well as collect additional fees of any 
amount to invest for undefined possible future needs, all such to be paid 
for by you, me and our children, the Internet's users of today and 
tomorrow, without their review, approval or control.

The new version of the proposed bylaws for the new Internet Authority was 
submitted on October 2, 1998 to Ira Magaziner of the White House and the 
Department of Commerce's NTIA, under the terms of the White House "White 
Paper" released last June, to create the replacement for the US 
Government's current contractual arrangement for management of the 
Internet, which is set to expire on Sept. 30, 1998.

But the new bylaws are completely devoid of any provisions to create any 
type of fiscal accountability for this, the Internet's first all-powerful, 
government-sanctioned independent Authority.

Although the new bylaws make it clear that the source of the new Internet 
Authority's revenues will be the Internet's end users and service 
providers, it leaves all spending, borrowing, investment and other 
financial decision-making solely in the hands of the Corporation's board of 
directors, who's members specifically ''have the duty to act in … the best 
interests of the Corporation and not as representatives of their Supporting 
Organizations, employers or any other organizations or constituencies." 
(Article V, Section 8)

Nowhere in the bylaws is the Board of Directors required to consult with 
any outside groups, experts, or other interested parties on how best to set 
its fees or plan its budget.

Nowhere in the bylaws is there any provision for any kind of independent 
budget review or hearing mechanism or approval process for the budget, 
borrowing, or any other fiscal decisions;

And nowhere in the bylaws is there any provision for any kind of 
independent fee-setting review process or approval mechanism, either by 
those who must pay the fees (the Supporting Organizations, who represent 
the consumers of the services to be provided by the new Corporation) or by 
any independent body of fiscal experts.

All these fiscal decisions are made solely by the new Internet Authority's 
own Board of Directors.

The relevant language in the proposed new bylaws makes this absolute power 
of the Board clear:

FIRST, it gives the board absolute control over any spending or borrowing 
decisions:

"Article IV, Section 1 (a)
…the powers of the Corporation will be exercised, its property controlled 
and its business and affairs conducted by or under the direction of the 
Board."

SECOND, it gives the board absolute control over the fee setting decisions:

"Article IV, Section 2. FEES AND CHARGES
The Board shall set fees and charges for the services, rights and benefits 
provided by the Corporation to the Supporting Organizations and others, 
with the goal of fully recovering the reasonable costs of the operation of 
the Corporation and establishing reasonable reserves for future expenses 
and contingencies reasonably related to the legitimate activities of the 
Corporation."

And THIRD, it gives the Board the sole authority and absolute control over 
setting its annual budget, with no requirement that it actually meet that 
budget or that the budget pass any kind of review process, all this in one 
simple line of the new Bylaws:

"Article V, Section 25. ANNUAL BUDGET
The Board shall prepare an annual budget, which shall be published on the 
Web Site."

These three phrases are the total extent of any language in the new bylaws 
that might be construed as setting ANY spending, fee setting and raising, 
budgeting, borrowing, investing or any other fiscal constraints on the 
board of an Internet Authority which will be the primary manager of the 
single most important communications resource in the world.

Such an all-powerful and fiscally unaccountable organization as would be 
created by the new bylaws is a classic textbook "Authority" in its 
structure, and that is the crux of my problem with the "final" set of IANA 
bylaws released on Sept. 29.

Look closely at any publicly-funded independent Authority in the US and you 
will find a self-perpetuating, quasi-governmental organization whose 
spending decisions can not be challenged, who spends the public's money 
like water, who has all the power over its particular area of activity, but 
no accountability to the public.

In the present case of the bylaws for the new Internet Authority, there is 
minimal accountability for its policy decisions, and that is cause enough 
for concern.

But there is NO accountability for its borrowing, spending and fee structure.

There needs to be some kind of mechanism in the new entity that will create 
a counter-force to the typical Authority's inevitable desire to grow and to 
spend more and more money and increase its sway in the world (remember, the 
margins in this business are huge. A big budget can "look" small when the 
margin is in the double digits) .

The counter-force to spending increases could be a "budget review 
committee" solely comprised of the groups that will fund the new Internet 
Authority. Or it could be a Finance Committee made up of independent, 
world-renowned fiscal experts who have no vested interest in the new 
Internet Authority or the Internet per se. Or it could be a committee of 
government finance experts with experience bringing public spending into 
line. Or it could be some combination of the above.

It would be a real tragedy if, in its first efforts at self-government, the 
Internet community were to hand over management of the Internet to yet 
another quasi-public Authority, perhaps best defined in an article I 
co-authored nearly ten years ago:

"Authorities constitute a permanent, expansionist government, collecting 
and spending more and more public money, running up more and more public 
debt, and making more and more critical decisions on the public's behalf 
with each passing day. And because authorities do all this out of site - 
and beyond the control - of the general public, they constitute, finally, a 
Shadow Government."

"Inside the Shadow Government," by John Strahinich and J. William Semich, 
cover article, Boston Magazine, November, 1989.

###
At 02:34 PM 3/23/2002, [email-masked] wrote:
>I have prepared a restructuring proposal for consideration by the Evolution
>and Reform Committee.  The document is posted at
>http://www.icannworld.org/evolution.htm
>
>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

- --
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, 24 Mar 2002 22:12:13 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Funding ICANN

Bill Semich is correct in asserting that the restructuring proposal is very 
weak on the issue that seems of greatest concern to ICANN right now: funding.

Funding is an issue of such importance that it assuredly compelled Mr. Lynn 
to propose governmental involvement in ICANN, even though official US policy 
as cited by the White Paper states:  "the U.S. continues to believe, as do 
most commenters, that neither national governments acting as sovereigns nor 
intergovernmental organizations acting as representatives of governments 
should participate in management of Internet names and addresses."

So, how do we deal with the problem?  Bill has offered one approach... I 
would like to hear from others... perhaps we could get some feedback from 
members of the Budget Advisory Group who even now must be in consultation 
with Stuart Lynn over the details of the new annual budget.  Additionally, it 
would be of benefit to all of us if we could actually review the preliminary 
budget (which still has not been posted).  We can't help that much if we 
continue to be kept in the dark.

Perhaps Mr. Lynn can let us know who currently sits on the Budget Advisory 
Group, and when the proposed budget will be made available for review.

- --
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, 25 Mar 2002 00:16:38 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Funding ICANN

[email-masked] wrote:
>
> Funding is an issue of such importance that it assuredly compelled Mr. Lynn
> to propose governmental involvement in ICANN, even though official US policy
> as cited by the White Paper states:  "the U.S. continues to believe, as do
> most commenters, that neither national governments acting as sovereigns nor
> intergovernmental organizations acting as representatives of governments
> should participate in management of Internet names and addresses."

If ICANN (or the US Government) truly wished to solve such
a funding problem without involving any of the above, they
could always turn to Individual Users.  But that would
also involve accountability.  

- --
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Toronto, Canada

tel: 416.422.1034
icq: 34564103
- --
"The most effective way to restrict democracy is to
transfer decision-making from the public arena to
unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly
castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern
corporations."
                                                                                                    
- -- Noam Chomsky
- --
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, 24 Mar 2002 23:28:12 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Funding ICANN

At 12:16 AM -0500 3/25/02, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>If ICANN (or the US Government) truly wished to solve such
>a funding problem without involving any of the above, they
>could always turn to Individual Users.  But that would
>also involve accountability.

Although welcome, it still wouldn't work.

Most people currently involved are nest-featherers. The budget will
continuw to expand, along with their power, until such time as we finally
pull the plug on this failed experiment.

Next time, we have to make sure that no one segment gets so much control
that they are able to keep other segment away from the table.

This means no ring-in directors on a preliminary board, for starters.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.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: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:32:49 -0500
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Funding ICANN

Andy Gardner wrote:
> 
>
> Next time, we have to make sure that no one segment gets so much control
> that they are able to keep other segment away from the table.

That would mean going against US foreign and domestic
policy as it has manifested itself in the past 90 years or
so.  Are you sure you want to do that Andy?

- --
Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Toronto, Canada

tel: 416.422.1034
icq: 34564103
- --
"The most effective way to restrict democracy is to
transfer decision-making from the public arena to
unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly
castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern
corporations."
                                                                                                    
- -- Noam Chomsky
- --
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, 24 Mar 2002 22:55:24 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] More legal ammunition against WLS

Hi folks,

I was perusing the Registrar agreement with ICANN some more. It's at:

http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm

Lots of good stuff in there, which Verisign seems to have overlooked.
Section 4 talks about "PROCEDURES FOR ESTABLISHMENT OR REVISION OF
SPECIFICATIONS AND POLICIES"

Sections 4.2, and 4.2.4:

"4.2 Topics for New and Revised Specifications and Policies. New and
revised specifications and policies may be established on the following
topics:"

"4.2.4 principles for allocation of Registered Names (e.g.,
first-come/first-served, timely renewal, holding period after
expiration);"

It is reasonable to believe that WLS would represent an alteration of
the allocation of Registered Names, and thus requires a new or revised
specification and/or policy.

Next, combine this with Section 4.3 and 4.1, which discuss "Consensus
Policies", and Verisign is trapped. 

"4.3.2 In the event that Registrar disputes the presence of such a
consensus, it shall seek review of that issue from an Independent
Review Panel established under ICANN's bylaws....In the event that
Registrar seeks review and the Independent Review Panel sustains the
Board's determination that the policy is based on a consensus among
Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, then Registrar
must implement such policy unless it promptly seeks and obtains a stay
or injunctive relief under Subsection 5.6."

Section 5.6 allows for arbitration, thus reducing legal costs, "at the
election of either party". It would allow one to challenge whether
there was a consensus.

With Verisign admitting to a lack of consensus, and not seeking one, it
should be a slam dunk case for the majority registrars, who have voted
against WLS in the DNSO RC.

I'm not a lawyer, so do your own review, of course. But, if ICANN had
any sense, WLS has as good a chance of being approved as Britney Spears
has at winning a Best Actress Oscar next year.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1102
*************************